
- , . s>rt&x>Ka 









Cla 

Cri 




189 




Class BXWll 
Book .NT 



\%%§ 



$-f*? 



A. /^*v~ " 



STATEMENT QF^E^ONS 

FOR N T'lTEXllTviN G 



mE DOCTRINES OP TRINITARIANS, 



CONCERNING 



THE NATURE OF GOD AND THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 



By ANDREWS NORTON. 



(the library I 

jot CONGRESS] 
W*SHlNQTOlf] 



TWELFTH EDITION. 



WITH ADDITIONS, AND A BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE 
OF THE AUTHOR. 



BOSTON: 
AMERICAN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION; 

1880. 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by 

Charles Eliot Norton, 

in the Clerk's Office of the District Ccurt of the District of Sfassachnsetts 



EDITORIAL NOTE. 



The present edition of the " Statement of 
Reasons " contains some additions and cor- 
rections made by the author in an interleaved 
copy of the work; and a few sentences have 
been omitted. The principal additions will 
be found on pp. 97, 98, 103, 104, and 238, 
239, of this volume, corresponding with pp. 
54, 59, and 172 of the edition of 1833. 

The translation of passages quoted from 
the Gospels has, for the most part, been con- 
formed to that contained in the author's 
" Translation of the Gospels, with Notes," 
recently published. The changes thus made, 
however, seldom affect the sense. 

The Biographical Notice of Mr. Norton, by 
the Rev. Dr. Newell, was first published in 
the Christian Examiner for November, 1853. 



iv EDITORIAL NOTE. 

The editor has taken the liberty to add a 
few notes and references in different parts of 
the volume. These, with the exception of 
one note of considerable length which con- 
cludes the Appendix, are carefully distin- 
guished by being enclosed in brackets. What- 
ever is so enclosed is editorial, except where 
brackets occur in the course of quotations 
made by the author. 

An Index to passages of Scripture quoted 
or referred to, and a General Index, have also 
been added to the work. 

R A. 
Cambridge, April, 1850. 



CONTENTS. 



Page 
Biographical Notice of Mr. Norton, by the Rev. 
William Newell, D.D. • ix 



STATEMENT OF REASONS. 
PREFACE 



SECTION I. 
Purpose op this Work 89 

SECTION II. 

The Proper Modern Doctrine of the Trinity con- 
tradictory in Terms to that of the Unity of God. 
— Forms in which the Doctrine has been stated, 
with Remarks. — The Doctrine that Christ is both 
God and Man, a Contradiction in Terms. — No Pre- 
tence that either Doctrine is expressly taught 
in the Scriptures. — The Mode of their supposed 
Proof wholly by way of Inference . 40 

1* 



VI CONTEXTS. 



SECTION III. 

The Proposition, that Christ is God, proved to be 
false from the scriptures .... 65 



SECTION IV. 
On the Origin of the Doctrine of the Trinity . 94 

SECTION V. 

Concerning the History of the Doctrine of the 
Hypostatic Union 107 * 

SECTION VI. 

Difficulties that may remain in some Minds respect- 
ing the Passages of Scripture alleged by Trini- 
tarians ... 136 

SECTION VII. 

On the Principles of the Interpretation of Lan- 
guage 138 

SECTION VIII. 

Fundamental Principle of Interpretation violated 
by Trinitarian Expositors. No Proposition can be 
incomprehensible, in itself considered, from the 
Nature of the Ideas expressed by it . . . 156 

SECTION IX. 

Explanations of particular Passages of the New 
Testament, adduced by Trinitarians . . . 174 

Class I. Interpolated and Corrupted Passages . . 183 
Class II Passages relating to Christ which have been 
mistranslated . 191 



CONTENTS. Vli 

Class III. Passages relating to God, which have been in- 
correctly applied to Christ . . 203 

Class IV Passages that might be considered as referring 
to the Doctrine of the Trinity, supposing it capable of 
proof and proved, but which in themselves present no 
appearance of any proof or intimation of it . .215 

Of Prayer to Christ ... 221 

On the Pre-existence of Christ . ... 234- 

Class V. Passages relating to the divine authority of 
Christ as the minister of God, to the manifestation of di- 
vine power in his miracles and in the establishment of 
Christianity, and to Christianity itself, spoken of under 
the name of Christ, and considered as a promulgation 
of the laws of God's moral government, — which have 
been misinterpreted as proving that Christ himself is 
God 253 

Class VI. Passages misinterpreted through inattention 
to the peculiar characteristics of the modes of expression 
in the New Testament 286 

Class VII. Passages, in the senses assigned to which, 
not merely the fundamental Rule of Interpretation, ex 
plained in Section VIII., is violated, but the most obvi- 
ous and indisputable Characteristics of Language are 
disregarded 304 

Class VIII. The Introduction of St. John's Gospel . 307 



SECTION X. 
Illustrations of the Doctrine of the Logos 332 

SECTION XI. 
Conclusion . 375 



VIU CONTENTS. 

APPENDIX. 

NOTE A. 
Explanation of John vi. 61, 62 . . 385 

NOTE B. 

On the Expectations of the Apostles concerning 
the Visible Return of their Master to Earth . 393 

NOTE C 

By the Editor. 

Various Readings of certain Passages supposed to 
have a Bearing on the Doctrine of the Trinity 432 



Index to Passages of Scripture quoted or re- 
ferred to ... 483 

General Index .-»..■• . 480 



BIOGEAPHICAL NOTICE 



OF 



MR. NORTON, 



REV. WILLIAM NEWELL, D.D., 

PASTOR OP THE FIRST CHURCH IN CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 



The name of Andrews Norton has long been 
widely known as that of one of the ablest theo- 
logians and most accomplished critics of our time ; 
standing, in his department of service, at the head 
of the Unitarian movement in this country. His 
memory will be ever admiringly cherished by those 
who sympathized with him in his religious views, 
and who knew him in the fulness of his fine powers, 
as it will be honored by all who are ready to do 
homage to a true man, wherever he may be found, 
by all who in a generous spirit can reverence sin- 
cere piety and virtue, rich genius and learning, 
patient industry and independent thought, con- 
secrated to the highest aims, in whatever quarter 
of the Christian camp their light may shine. 

When such a man passes away, we cannot but 
pause at his tomb, and hearken to the voices that 



X BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE 

come up to us from the receding past, louder and 
louder, as we listen, speaking of his labors and 
virtues. Both for the instruction of the living, and 
in justice and gratitude to the dead, we must 
glance, if we can do no more, over the scenes 
through which he has moved and the work which 
he has done. We propose to give a brief, though 
necessarily an imperfect, sketch of the life, char- 
acter, and services of this faithful and gifted ser- 
vant of Christ and of God, with a full apprecia- 
tion, we trust, of his high merits, but in that spirit 
of simple truth which he loved so well, and which 
was one of the marked characteristics of the whole 
man. 

Mr. Norton was a native of Hingham, Massa- 
chusetts. He was a direct descendant of Rev. 
John Norton of that town, who was a nephew of 
the celebrated John Norton, minister of Ipswich, 
and afterwards of Boston. His father, Samuel 
Norton, was a well-known and much respected 
citizen of Hingham, often employed in its public 
trusts, whose agreeable conversation and manners 
are spoken of by those who remember him. He 
was educated in the tenets of Calvinism, but, as he 
grew older, the views which it presents of the 
character and government of God were so revolt- 
ing to him, that for a time he was almost driven 
into utter unbelief, until, under the light of truer 
and brighter views, he found faith and peace. He 
was a man of great devoutness of mind, delight- 
ing to see and to speak of the Creator's wisdom 
and love in all his works. He died in 1832, at 



OF MR. NORTON. Xi 

the advanced age of eighty-eight. He married 
Miss Jane Andrews, of Hingham, a sister of Rev. 
Dr. Andrews, for so many years the minister of 
Newburyport. Another of her brothers died from 
a wound received at the battle of Brandywine. 
She lived to the age of eighty-five, and died 
in 1840. 

Andrews Norton, the youngest child of his 
parents, was born December 31, 1786. From 
childhood he was remarkable for his love of books 
and his proficiency in his studies. Having com- 
pleted his preparatory course at the Derby Acad- 
emy, in Hingham, in 1801 he entered the Sopho- 
more class in Harvard College, and was distin- 
guished throughout his academical career for his 
high scholarship and correct deportment. He 
graduated in 1804, the youngest of his class, at 
the age of eighteen. The natural seriousness and 
religious tone of his mind determined him at once 
in the choice of his profession, and led him, on 
leaving college, to commence his preparation for 
the ministry. He became a Resident Graduate at 
Cambridge, but not being in haste to preach, he 
quietly pursued a course of literary and theological 
study, and laid the foundation of that high mental 
culture and large erudition which afterwards dis- 
tinguished him. In this scholastic, but not idle 
nor fruitless retirement, he continued for a few 
years, residing partly at Cambridge, partly at his 
father's house in Hingham, until, in October, 1809, 
after preaching for a few weeks in Augusta, Maine, 
he accepted the office of Tutor in Bowdoin College. 



Xll BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE 

Here he remained a year, and some of the friend- 
ships which he then formed lasted through life. 
After this he returned to Cambridge, which hence- 
forward became his fixed and chosen residence. In 

1811, he was elected Tutor in Mathematics in 
Harvard College, but resigned his office at the 
close of the year. Mr. Norton had now reached 
that point in his career at which the rich fruits 
of genius and scholarship, that had been so long 
ripening in the shade, were to be brought before 
the public eye, and to receive their due apprecia- 
tion. It will be remembered that his entrance on 
his theological studies was nearly coincident with 
the breaking out of the controversy between the 
orthodox and liberal parties in theology, occasioned 
by the election, in 1805, of Rev. Dr. Ware, then 
minister of Hingham, to the Hollis Professorship. 
Without going into the history of that controver- 
sy, it is sufficient to say, that it was amidst the 
strong and constantly increasing excitement which 
it produced, that Mr. Norton's early manhood was 
passed. The atmosphere of the times and the 
character of his associates contributed, no doubt, 
to strengthen the decided bent of his mind towards 
the theological and metaphysical questions which 
formed the subjects of discussion of the day. Ik 
the society of such men as Buckminster, Thacher, 
Channing, Eliot, Frisbie, Farrar, Kirkland, and 
others of kindred opinions and spirit, his attach- 
ment to the principles of the liberal school must 
have received added impulse and strength. In 

1812, he undertook the publication of " The Gen* 



OF MR. NORTON. Xlll 

eral Repository and Review," a work " in which," 
to use his own words, " the tone of opposition to 
the prevailing doctrines of Orthodoxy was more 
explicit, decided, and fundamental than had been 
common among us." Its straightforward boldness 
in the expression of opinions which then seemed 
new and heretical, while it was admired and ap- 
proved by some, startled others, even of the liberal 
party, who thought that the time for it was not 
yet ripe. It was conducted with signal ability, 
but after the second year was discontinued for 
want of support. It was too bold, and probably 
somewhat too learned, to win general favor. But 
it did its work and left its mark. In 1813 he 
was appointed Librarian of the College. He dis- 
charged the duties of his new office with his 
accustomed fidelity and judgment, and under his 
direction much was done during his eight years' 
service towards improving the condition of the 
library, then in many points, as in some now, 
lamentably deficient. He relinquished the charge 
of it in 1821 ; but he always retained a warm in- 
terest in its welfare, and was a generous con- 
tributor to it through life. In 1813, the same 
year in which he became Librarian, he was also 
chosen Lecturer on Biblical Criticism and Inter- 
pretation, under the bequest of Hon. Samuel 
Dexter. The revered names of Buckminster and 
Channing stand associated with his, as his prede- 
cessors elect in this office. Eminent as they were, 
it is not too much to say, that their successor did 
not fall below even their mark ; that in a peculiar 

2 



XIV BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE 

fitness for the place, he was in some respects before 
them ; and that he carried out what they had only 
begun, or hoped to begin. Mr. Norton preached 
occasionally in the pulpits of Boston and the 
neighborhood, and, though he lacked the popular 
gifts of a public speaker, his services were held in 
acceptance by those who were best able to appre- 
ciate his true merits. At one time during the 
vacancy at the New South, previous to the elec- 
tion of Mr. Thacher, many of the members of that 
Society, as we have been informed, would have 
been glad to invite Mr. Norton to become their 
pastor. His lectures in Cambridge on subjects 
of Biblical Criticism were greatly admired ; and 
there were persons who went out from Boston to 
hear them, whenever they were delivered. 

In 1819, upon the organization of the Divinity 
School and the establishment of the Dexter Pro- 
fessorship of Sacred Literature, Mr. Norton was 
chosen by the Corporation to fill that office. He 
was inaugurated on the 10th of August, 1819 ; 
and the discourse which he delivered on that 
occasion, republished by him in his recent volume 
of " Tracts on Christianity," ought to be in the 
hands of every student of theology. He held his 
office till his resignation in 1830 ; " bringing to it," 

— to use the words of one of his associates in the 
Divinity School, still living and honored among us,* 

— "his large and ever-increasing stores of knowl- 
edge; imparting it in the clearest manner; nevrr 

* Professor Willard. 



OF MR. NORTON. XV 

dogmatizing, in an ill sense of the word; but, on 
the contrary, fortifying his doctrines, solemnly 
and deliberately , established in his own mind, 
with all the arguments and proofs that his critical 
studies and logical power could furnish." In 1821, 
he was married to Miss Catharine Eliot, daughter 
of Samuel Eliot, Esq., a wealthy and highly re- 
spected merchant of Boston, and a munificent 
benefactor of the College, whose son, Charles 
Eliot,* a young man of rare promise, early cut 
off, had been Mr. Norton's intimate coadjutor 
and friend. It is sufficient to say, that in this 
union he found all the happiness which earth has 
to give, and all that the truest sympathy and love 
can bestow. In 1822, he was bereaved of another 
of the dear friends whose society had been among 
the choicest blessings of his life, — the highly gift- 
ed and pure-minded Frisbie. He delivered an ad- 
^dress before the University at his interment, and 
the following year published a collection of his 
literary remains, with a short memoir. In the dis- 
cussions which took place in 1824-25, respect- 
ing the condition and wants of the College, and 
the relation between the Corporation and the Im- 
mediate Government, he took a prominent part 
both with voice and pen. In 1824, he published 
his " Remarks on a Report of a Committee of the 
Board of Overseers " proposing certain changes in 
the instruction and discipline of the College. In 
February, 1825, he appeared before the Board of 

* The Miscellaneous Writings of Charles Eliot, with a biographi 
cal memoir by Mr. Norton, were printed in 1814 



XVI BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE 

Overseers in behalf of the memorial of the Resi- 
dent Instructors, relative to " the mode in which, 
according to the charter of the institution, the 
Corporation of the same ought of right to be 
constituted." Edward Everett, then Professor of 
Greek Literature in the University, spoke in the 
morning, and Mr. Norton in the afternoon and 
evening, in support of the memorial. Mr. Norton's 
speech was afterwards published. His admiration 
of the poetry of Mrs. Hemans induced him, in 
1826, to undertake the collection and republication 
of her works in this country, in a style suited to 
his estimation of their merits ; and in an article in 
the Examiner during that year, followed by other 
articles on the same subject at different times, he 
labored to impress on the public mind his own 
sense of their richness and beauty. In the spring 
of 1828, partly for the benefit of his health, partly 
for the enjoyment of the tour, he went to England. 
He enjoyed so much during this visit, and formed 
so many pleasant acquaintances, especially with 
those whom he had long admired in their writings 
(Mrs. Hemans among others), that, in a career so 
quiet and uneventful as his for the most part was, 
it took its place among the most interesting recol- 
lections of his life. After the resignation of his 
Professorship, in 1830, he continued to devote 
himself to literary and theological pursuits. At 
the earnest solicitation of a friend (Rev. William 
Ware, we believe), urging the republication of his 
article on " Stuart's Letters to Channing," he 
undertook to revise and enlarge it; and the re 



OF MR. NORTON. XVU 

suit of his labors — a new work in fact, the most 
able, thorough, and learned refutation of the Trin- 
itarian doctrine that has yet appeared — was 
given to the press in 1833, under the title of 
u A Statement of Reasons for not believing the 
Doctrines of Trinitarians concerning the Nature 
of God and the Person of Christ" In 1833-34, 
he edited, in connection with his friend, Charles 
Folsom, Esq., " The Select Journal of Foreign 
Periodical Literature," a quarterly publication, the 
plan and object of which are to some extent in- 
dicated by the title. It contained also remarks 
and criticisms by the editors, and some longer 
articles by Mr. Norton. In 1837, he published the 
first volume of his elaborate work on the " Genu- 
ineness of the Gospels." In 1839, at the invitation 
of the Alumni of the Divinity School, he delivered 
the annual discourse before them, afterwards pub- 
lished, " On the Latest Form of Infidelity." Those 
who remember him as he appeared on that occa- 
sion, speaking to many of them for the last time, 
will not soon forget the impressions of that day, 
deepened by the evident feebleness of his health, 
by his slow, impressive utterance, and the "sweetly 
solemn" tones of that well-known voice, speaking 
out with slightly tremulous earnestness the deep 
convictions of a truth-loving, Christ-loving man, 
as with eagle eye he saw danger in the distance, 
where others saw only an angel of light, and with 
a prophet's earnestness sounded the alarm. The 
publication of Mr. Norton's discourse led to a con- 
troversy, in which he further illustrated and de« 

2* 



XV111 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE 

fended the news which he had expre&sed respect- 
ing the " Modern German School of Infidelity." 

In 1844 appeared the second and third volumes 
of his work on the " Genuineness of the Gospels," 
completing the important and laborious investi- 
gation, which had occupied him for so many years, 
of the historical evidence on this subject. With 
the exception of his volume of " Tracts on Chris- 
tianity," printed in 1852, composed chiefly of the 
larger essays and discourses which had before 
appeared in a separate form, this was his last 
published book. 

Mr. Norton's life, certainly the most prominent 
portion of it, moved through sunshine. Clouded 
as it .was by occasional bereavement, the common 
lot, and by the infirm health of his latter days, it 
was yet, in other respects, a singularly happy one. 
He was surrounded with every earthly blessing. 
He had within his reach all that can feed the 
intellect, or gratify the taste. He had leisure and 
opportunity for his chosen work. And all around 
him was an atmosphere of purity and peace. His 
strong and tender affections bloomed fresh and 
green to the last, in the sunny light of a Christian 
home. He loved and was loved, where to love 
and to be loved is a man's joy and crown. He 
had both the means and the heart to do good. 
And so, in tranquil labor, in calm reflection, in 
grave discussion of high themes, or in the play of 
cheerful conversation, amid the books and the 
friends he loved, " faded his late declining year3 
«way." His strength had been for a long time 



OF MR. NORTON. XxX 

very gradually failing, as by the decay of a pre- 
mature old age. In the autumn of 1849, it was 
suddenly prostrated by severe illness, from the 
effects of which he never entirely recovered. By 
the advice of his physician, he passed the follow- 
ing summer at Newport, with such great and de- 
cided benefit to his health from the change of air, 
that it was resolved to make it in future his summer 
residence. But in the spring of 1853, it was evi- 
dent that his strength was declining, and that the 
bracing sea-breeze had lost its power to restore it. 
He became more and more feeble, till, at the close 
of the summer, he was unable to leave his room ; 
but his mind remained strong and unclouded al- 
most to the last. He was fully aware that the 
end drew nigh. And he met death, as we should 
expect that he above most men would meet it, 
with all a Christian's firmness, tranquilly, trust- 
ingly, with a hope full of immortality, reposing on 
the bosom of the Father. His patience, serenity, 
gentleness, his calm faith in God, the heavenline&s 
of his spirit, the sweetness of his smile, illumined 
and sanctified the house of death. He gradually 
sunk away, till on Sunday evening, September 18, 
the quivering flame of life went out, and the shin- 
ing light within ascended to the Father of lights. 

The life of Mr. Norton was that of a diligent 
student and thinker, doing his work in the still air 
of the library, and withdrawn from the stir and 
rush of the great world, yet not indifferent to its 
movements, nor unconcerned in its welfare. He 
mingled little in political affairs, though in them, 



XX BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE 

as in everything else, he had his own distinct 
judgment and decided action, when the time 
called. He took no prominent part in the moral 
reforms of the day. A lover of his country, a 
lover of his kind, he expressed his patriotism and 
his philanthropy in quiet, individual ways. What- 
ever he did for others, there was no sounding of a 
trumpet before him. He went little into general 
society. He had enough, as we have seen, to 
occupy his time and his thoughts, without going 
out of his little world into the larger. The deli- 
cacy of his health and the languidness of his 
animal spirits, added to the studiousness of his 
habits and his natural reserve, made him some- 
what of a recluse. But his house, with its kind 
and sincere hospitality, was always open, nor was 
his heart cold, or his hand shut. 

He was never idle ; but he chose to labor in 
his own way, apart from the crowd. He knew 
that he should labor more happily and more use- 
fully so. He kept aloof from public excitements. 
He had no taste for public meetings. He had not 
the showy, popular gifts, which fit a man for the 
speeches of the platform ; nor the impulsive social 
temperament, which throws itself into the boiling 
current of the times. He was, both by nature 
and on principle, disinclined to enter into the 
associated movements of denominational warfare. 
He objected to the Unitarian name. He did not 
favor the formation of the Unitarian Association. 
On this point he differed decidedly, but quietly and 
amicably, from the majority of his brethren. No 



OF MR. NORTON. XJ I 

man prized the truths of Liberal Christianity more 
highly than he, or held them with a firmer grasp ; 
but he believed that they would- make their way 
more surely, and in the end more rapidly, with less 
irritating friction against the popular modes of 
faith, and with less peril, both from without and 
from within, if left to the quiet channels of indi- 
vidual speech and individual effort. He therefore 
studiously kept aloof from any distinct, formal 
organization, even for the maintenance and dif- 
fusion of doctrines dearer to him than life. 

And yet this reserved, independent, solitary 
thinker, moving in his own orbit, towards his 
chosen goal, carried with him by a mastery which 
he did not seek, and by a gravitation which was 
but the natural result of his intellectual greatness, 
a host of other minds that rejoiced in his kingly 
light. By the massive power of his mind and the 
weight of his learning, by the force of his character 
and the impressive authority of his word, spoken 
and written, he wielded for many years an influ- 
ence in the body to which he belonged, such as 
few other men among us have ever possessed. 
This influence, as quiet as it was powerful, was 
exerted partly through his stated teachings in the 
Divinity School at Cambridge, partly through his 
private conversational intercourse, partly through 
the occasional articles and the more elaborate 
works which came forth, "few and far between," 
from his scrupulous pen. What he was and did 
in his several fields of theological service is well 
understood by many of our readers; but those 



XX11 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE 

who knew little of him will be glad to know more, 
and those who knew him best will love to read 
over again the recollections of the past, and to 
dwell on the memory of what they owe him. 

Mr, Norton brought to the Professorship of 
Racred Literature a combination of rich qualifica- 
tions, natural and acquired, for his high office, 
such as is rarely found, such as we can hardly 
hope to see again, approximating the ideal of the 
consummate theologian described by him in his 
Inaugural Discourse; — an acute and vigorous in- 
tellect, disciplined in all its faculties by laborious 
study, trained to habits of clear and exact reason- 
ing, and remarkable alike for its powers of analysis 
and discrimination, for the logical ability with 
which it grappled with the questions before it, for 
the intense and sustained concentration of its 
strength on its chosen subjects, and for the native 
sagacity and good sense with which it saw its 
way to the hidden truth ; varied and extensive 
learning, as finished and accurate as it was full ; 
a most pure and nicely critical taste ; a fine 
imagination, that stood back in waiting as the 
handmaid to his robust understanding; a com- 
plete command of his accumulated resources; an 
inwardly enthusiastic devotion to the studies 
which he had embraced, and the highest appre- 
ciation of their nobleness and importance ; a 
masterly familiarity with the science of Scrip- 
tural interpretation, and with the whole circle of 
theological science ; a love of original and inde- 
pendent investigation, going back to the fountain- 



OF MR. NORTON. XX111 



head, and never satisfying itself with guesses or 
traditions ; an indefatigable assiduity and patience 
of examination and of pursuit in the researches 
which formed the business of his life ; the most 
scrupulous carefulness in the statement of facts; 
a simple lucidness of expression and daylight 
distinctness of thought, even in the abstrusest 
themes, as of one who believed that intelligible 
ideas can be conveyed in intelligible words, and 
that no others are worth having ; a conscientious 
slowness in forming his conclusions, combined 
with great strength, earnestness, and decision in 
maintaining the opinions at which he at length 
arrived ; a confidence that justified itself to those 
who knew him in the results of his so cautiously 
conducted inquiries, and a conscious authority 
which impressed his convictions on others; and 
with and above all other gifts, surrounding them 
with a sacred halo, the profound religiousness of 
his nature, seen, not shown, the depth and calm 
intensity of his faith in Christianity and in Christ, 
the elevated seriousness of his views of life and 
duty, and the purity, delicacy, uprightness, of his 
whole character. 

The influence of such a man, both in his in- 
structions and his example, on the minds which 
were brought into contact with him at the Divin- 
ity School in Cambridge, can hardly be overrated. 
They regarded him with peculiar reverence and 
admiration. They listened with eagerness and 
profound interest to his decided and luminous 
'Vords, so aptly expressive of his decided an^ 



XXIV BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE 

luminous thoughts. Even if they were not pre- 
pared to accept his conclusions, they did not the 
less admire the strength and fulness with which 
they were set forth. His admirable elucidations 
of Scripture, his searching criticisms on the vari- 
ous readings or various theories of interpretation, 
his convincing expositions of Christian doctrine, 
his solemn and impressive representations of the 
character and teachings of Christ, his interesting 
unwritten (yet, it seemed to us, as complete and 
exact, both in thought and language, as if they 
had been written) dissertations on some point of 
theological or metaphysical inquiry, his wise hints 
and counsels to the young preacher, uttered in 
that peculiar manner of his which gave them a 
double force, will never be forgotten by those who 
heard them. Even those who on some points are 
not in sympathy with him, love to bear testimony 
to his high merits. The voluntary tribute which 
Dr. Furness rendered to him some years since in 
his work on " Jesus and his Biographers," is as 
just as it is heart-felt. 

" I esteem it an invaluable privilege," he says, 
" to have been introduced to the study of the New 
Testament under the clear and able guidance of 
Mr. Norton. How fully did he realize the idea 
of a true instructor, not standing still and pointing 
out our way for us over a beaten path, but ascend- 
ing every height, descending into every depth, with 
his whole attention and heart, and carrying the 
hearts of his pupils along with him. The remem- 
brance of those days, when a rich and powerful 



OF MR. NORTON. XX\ 

mind, animated by the spirit of truth, came close 
to my own mind, renders more vivid my sense 
of the meaning of the great Teacher of teachers 
when he described the increase of the power of 
truth, which was the life of his being, under the 
figure of a personal coming, and said, ' If any man 
will keep my commandments, my Father will love 
him, and we will come unto him and make our 
abode with him.' "* 

" Whatever interest I have felt in the study o 
the Bible," says another of the most eminent o 
our Unitarian divines, " or whatever knowledge 1 
have gained of the proper way of pursuing that 
study, I owe in great measure to him, certainly 
more to him than to all other men. And when I 
look back to the three years spent under his kind 
and faithful instruction, I seem to return to one 
of the happiest as well as most profitable periods 
of my life." 

It has been said, that the awe which he uncon- 
sciously inspired was sometimes unfavorable to 
the free action and free expression of thought in 
those who sat under his instructions ; and that the 
severity of his taste, and his known dislike, openly 
or silently expressed, of everything which bordered 
on what is theatrical in manner, or over-florid in 
style, or extravagant in sentiment, had a tendency 
to repress too much the exuberance of youthful 
imagination and the warmth of youthful feeling. 
Certainly the danger was on that side. But for 

* Furness's Jesus and his Biographers, p. 212. 



XXV) BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICF 

one who may perchance have suffered from this 
cause, many, we are sure, will thank him through 
life for the restraining, improving, and elevating 
influence which he exerted on their minds and 
hearts. 

But the field of Mr. Norton's labors and useful- 
ness extended far beyond the bounds of the theo- 
logical institution with which he was for a time 
connected, and of the religious body to which he 
belonged. He became known and widely re- 
spected through the writings, chiefly of a religious, 
partly of a literary character, which through vari- 
ous channels he gave to the press. He was too 
careful of truth, and too careless of present fame,— 
like his great neighbor-artist painting for immor- 
tality and giving the last touches to his work till 
death found him still waiting to finish it, — too 
deeply impressed with the sense of an author's 
responsibleness in the publication of his opinions 
on important subjects, too anxious that his offer- 
ings at the altar of Christian science should be 
without blemish and without spot, to be a rapid or 
voluminous writer. Non multa sed multum. He 
has left enough to lay us under a lasting debt of 
gratitude. Whenever we hear a contrast sug- 
gested between him and others in this respect, 
implying some defect on his part, we are always 
reminded of the old fable, in the school-book, of 
the Cony and the Lion. " See my troop of little 
ones! and how many hast thou ?" "One, but a 
(ion" One such work as that on the " Genuine- 

"« of the Gospels " is more honorable to a man, 



OP MR. NORTON. XXVU 

than a score of imperfectly prepared, roughly fin- 
ished, loosely jointed productions, soon to die and 
be forgotten. Besides, each one must work in his 
own way, and not in another's ; and each subject 
must have its own mode of treatment. The in- 
quiries on which Mr. Norton spent his strength 
demand of a conscientious man all the thought, 
labor, long circumspection, and minuteness of in- 
vestigation which he can give them. He held his 
place, he did his part, — a high and peculiar one, — 
in the confirmation and advancement of Christian 
truth. Let others be as faithful to theirs. A sur- 
vey, however, of Mr. Norton's actual labors, both 
as a theologian and a man of letters, will show 
that his life was a continuously industrious one; — 
and even on the point to which we have refened, 
the amount of his published writings, some in- 
justice may have been done him from the fact 
that many of them appeared in the periodical 
literature of his day, and stand somewhat out of 
sight. 

Mr. Norton's earliest contributions to the press 
appeared in the Literary Miscellany, a periodical 
published in Cambridge in the style of the day, in 
1804-5. They are a notice of Cowper, a short 
review of a sermon by Rev. Henry Ware, his pas- 
tor, and one or two short poetical translations. 
They are of little interest, except as indicating the 
turn of his mind at the age of eighteen or nineteen, 
and as dimly foreshadowing to us in their subjects 
the future career of the theologian, the man of 
letters, and the poet He wrote some years after 



£X\ill BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE 

this for the Monthly Anthology. To some of its 
volumes his contributions, we believe, were fre- 
quent. 

It was not, however, till he assumed the editor- 
ship of the General Repository, that his full power 
as a thinker and a writer was publicly developed 
and understood. The first article of that work, a 
very clear and powerful, and, as it was then con- 
sidered, a very bold article, entitled " A Defence of 
Liberal Christianity," was written by him, and 
attracted much notice. Its sentiments, then new, 
or not before so openly expressed, drew down 
severe animadversion from the orthodox pulpit 
and press. This was followed by his masterly 
review, continued through several numbers of the 
same periodical, of the " Controversy between Dr. 
Priestley, Dr. Horsley, and others," evincing the 
most thorough learning and the most patient re- 
search. Other minor contributions of his, literary 
and poetical, are scattered through the work. 

With the New Series of the Christian Disciple, 
commenced in 1819, Mr. Norton resumed his pub- 
lic literary labors, which appear to have been sus- 
pended for a time in consequence of the discon- 
tinuance of the General Repository, and the want 
of an appropriate organ for the utterance of his 
views. Besides some smaller articles of a general 
character, he contributed several critical and doc- 
trinal dissertations of great value and interest, and 
full of that marked power which placed him at 
the head of the theological and controversial writ- 
ers of his day. Among these are his Review of 



OF MK NORTON. XXIX 

Stuarts Letters to Channing, by far the mo&t able, 
complete, and at the same time condensed con- 
futation of the doctrine of the Trinity which has 
yet appeared, — his "Thoughts on True and False 
Religion," — and his " Views of Calvinism." The 
earlier volumes of the Christian Examiner were 
also enriched by his pen. The articles on the 
Poetry of Mrs. Hemans, and one on Pollok's 
Course of Time, will be remembered among those 
of a purely literary character. Besides these and 
several religious essays in the first and second 
volumes of the Examiner, on the " Future Life of 
the Good," the " Works of God," the " Punish- 
ment of Sin," the " Duty of Continual Improve- 
ment," &c.j he contributed some critical disserta- 
tions and reviews. His articles on the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, in the fourth, fifth, and sixth vol- 
umes, form the most valuable and instructive dis- 
cussion which has appeared in the English lan- 
guage, or perhaps in any language, on that subject. 
We wish they might be republished, as a separate 
work, for wider circulation. His last contribution 
to the Christian Examiner appeared, in September, 
1849, in the shape of a letter to his friend, Mr. 
George Ticknor, on the " Origin and Progress of 
Liberal Christianity in New England, and on Mr. 
Buckmins+er's Relations to them." He wrote also 
for the North American Review, though not often. 
His most noticeable articles in that publication are 
those on " Franklin," in January, 1818, on " Byron," 
in October, 1825, on Rev. William Ware's " Letters 
from Palmyra," in October, 1837, and a " Memoii 

3* 



XXX BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE 

of Mrs. Grant of Laggan," in January, 1845. Hia 
severe strictures on the character of Lord Byron, 
and the immoral tendency of some of his poems, 
although he allowed him all the praise justly due 
to his remarkable genius, were highly unpalatable 
to the idolatrous admirers of that great poet. But 
they were seasonable and true, and will commend 
themselves to every mind of pure taste and high 
principle, that is not dazzled and blinded by the 
intellectual splendor which, like the silver veil of 
Mokanna, may hide from his votaries the deformity 
beneath. In this, as in all Mr. Norton's critiques 
on the poetry and literature of the times, the influ- 
ence which he exerted was of the highest and most 
salutary kind, laboring as he did with all his ear- 
nestness and strength to bring the literary judg- 
ments of the community into harmony with Chris- 
tian morals and a Christian taste, and fearlessly 
opposing himself to the popular current, when, 
either in theology or in letters, it was running, or 
in danger of running, the wrong way. 

The Select Journal contains also much original 
matter by him. The longest articles in this work 
from his pen are upon " Goethe " and " Hamilton's 
Men and Manners in America." 

Mr. Norton's withdrawal for the last twenty 
years from very active and prominent service may 
have created a false impression in some minds re- 
specting the amount of his labors. It will be seen 
from the survey that has been given of his contri- 
butions to the religious and other periodicals of 
his time, that his life — especially when we take 



OF MR. NORTON. XXXI 

into consideration the important occupations of 
his Professorship, the nature of his studies, and 
the engagements of various kinds which fall upon 
a man in his position — was not only laboriously- 
industrious, but an abundantly productive one. 
He was so little ambitious of shining before the 
world, and so independent, both in mind and in 
circumstances, of any outward pressure, — he was 
so careful and conscientiously thorough in all that 
he undertook, besides being always so far from 
robust, and, latterly, so much of an invalid, — that 
we ought rather to be grateful that he did so much, 
than to wonder that he did not do more. He was 
not a man to be hurried by the false expectations of 
others. He wrought u as in his great Taskmaster's 
eye," not for theirs. He knew best when his work 
was finished, and then, and not till then, it came 
forth. 

The last years of Mr. Norton's life were chiefly 
devoted to the preparation and the completion of 
important works, long planned in the hope of ren- 
dering permanent service to the religion which he 
loved with all his mind and heart and strength, as 
his own and the world's most precious treasure 
and hope. One, his great work on the " Genuine- 
ness of the Gospels," will be a lasting monument 
of his intellectual ability and his patient, consci- 
entious research, and one of the standard contribu- 
tions to the evidences of our Christian faith, which 
will go down to posterity in company with those 
of the greatest names in this department of Chris- 
tian study. It is an honor to our country, of which 



XXX11 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE 

we have quite as much reason to be proud, as of 
other illustrious achievements by other pens in 
more popular and better appreciated fields of men- 
tal labor. The historian, the poet, the orator rise 
at once into the upper sky of a nation's admi- 
ration, and their names become world-renowned. 
The great theologian, the profound thinker, the re- 
tired scholar, elaborating in his study the noblest 
products of thought, and establishing truths of the 
most vital importance to the highest interests oi 
man, must, like Kepler, wait his time. Sooner or 
later that time will come, and the tardy verdict of 
the world will crown him with its laurel wreath. 

The three volumes of the work just mentioned 
contain an elaborate exposition — finished with all 
that minute accuracy for which Mr. Norton was so 
remarkable, and with all that logical acuteness and 
strength for which he was equally distinguished — 
of the historical evidence of the genuineness of the 
Gospels. It was his intention, if his life and 
health had been continued, to add another vol- 
ume concerning the internal evidences of their 
genuineness ; which he wished, however, to ap- 
pear simultaneously with a new translation of the 
Gospels, accompanied by explanatory notes, on 
which he had been long engaged. He did not 
live to complete, as we fondly hoped he might, 
the former part of his plan ; but we rejoice, and all 
who knew him will rejoice with us, to learn that 
the translation of the Gospels with critical and 
explanatory notes, the work which we believe he 
had most at heart, is entirely finished, and \n a 



OF MR. NORTON. XX XI 11 

state of preparation for the press. Consecrated to 
us as it is by his long laboi upon it, and bearing 
to us the last messages of his pen, we shall look 
forward to its publication with an eager interest, 
believing that it will afford important aid to every 
class of readers in the interpretation of the New 
Testament, bring out with new force the evidences 
of its truth, and present in a clearer and fuller 
light the beauty and power of our Saviour's char- 
acter, the sublime import of his teachings, and the 
divine greatness of his life.* "We hope, also, that 
a dissertation, prepared by him, as is understood, 
within a recent period, on the theory of Strauss 
and its kindred vagaries, and forming a part of his 
contemplated volume on the internal evidences of 
the Gospels, may be in some form given to the 
world. It may interest our readers also to know, 

* Since the above was written, this important and instructive work 
- the precious legacy of the Christian scholar, laboring to the last for 
the truth as it is in Jesus, the matured fruit of long years of patient 
and conscientious study — has been issued from the press (in May, 
1855), under the editorship of his son, Mr. Charles Eliot Norton, 
and Mr. Ezra Abbot, Jr., in two volumes octavo, the first volume 
containing the Translation, and the second, the Notes. Simultane- 
ously with this, in accordance with the plan proposed to himself by 
Mr. Norton, they published another volume of his writings, entitled 
"Internal Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels," containing 
" Remarks on Christianity and the Gospels, with particular reference 
tc Strauss's ' Life of Jesus/ " and " Portions of an Unfinished Work " 
on the general subject which forms the title of the book. The pub- 
lication of these volumes has added largely to the debt of gratitude 
and reverence which is justly due to him, as one of the most accom- 
plished interpreters of the Christian records, and one of the ablest, 
acutest, and most earnest defenders of the Christian revelation in oui 
own or in any age. 



XXXIV BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE 

that he has left behind him a complete translation 
of the Epistle to the Romans, and of the First 
Epistle to the Corinthians, aad translations of the 
obscure portions of other Epistles, with a body of 
notes, critical and exegetical, which must be of 
great value to the student of the Scriptures. We 
cannot help expressing our earnest wish that these 
also may, if possible, be published at some future 
time, in connection, perhaps, with the articles of 
which we have already spoken, on the Epistle to 
the Hebrews. Even the fragmentary products of 
so clear and penetrating a mind, consecrated 
through life to the study of the Christian Scrip- 
tures and the Christian revelation, and filled with 
so devout a spirit, will be gladly welcomed. 

Mr. Norton's writings are all impressed with the 
same strongly marked qualities, bearing the image 
of the man; the same calm but deep tone of re- 
ligious feeling ; the same exalted seriousness of 
view, as that of a man in sight of God and on the 
borders of eternity ; the same high moral standard ; 
the same transparent clearness of statement ; the 
same logical closeness of reasoning ; the same 
quiet earnestness of conviction ; the same sus- 
tained confidence in his conclusions, resting as 
they did, or as he meant they should, on solid 
grounds and fully examined premises ; the same 
minute accuracy and finish; the same strict truth- 
fulness and sincerity, saying nothing for mere 
effect. And the style is in harmony with the 
thought, — pure, chaste, lucid, aptly expressive, 
unaffected, uninvolved, English undefiled schol- 



OF MR. NORTON. XXXV 

arly, yet never pedantic, strong, yet not hard or 
dry ; and, when the subject naturally called for it, 
clothing itself in the rich hues and the beautiful 
forms of poetic fancy, that illumined, while it 
adorned, his thought. 

The works of this eminent man w T ill be always 
valuable, not only for the treasures of learning 
which they contain, and the light which they 
throw on questions of the deepest importance to 
every thinking man and every Christian theolo- 
gian, but for the instructive example which they 
present of rare virtues, never more needed than in 
this age of hurry and excitement. They furnish 
lessons to the scholar and the student which he 
will do well to ponder and profit by ; — lessons of 
patience, of persevering research, of scrupulous 
accuracy, of thorough and independent investiga- 
tion, and of a conscientious slowness in the pub- 
lication of facts and opinions which can be prop- 
erly established only by long and diligent inquiry. 
He did not believe in any intuitional knowledge, — 
knowledge snatched up in a day and by hasty 
glances into the written or the unwritten page of 
truth. He did not believe that there is any royal 
road to solid and trustworthy learning, — any road 
to it except the old one, as old as man, — the beaten 
path of patient study, toiling on day after day, year 
after year. He believed with Newton, himself the 
example of what he said, that it is by concentra- 
tion and fixedness of thought, by intent devotion 
to its subject, more than by native genius, that the 
best and greatest results are to be wrought out 



XXXVI BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE 

He thought it much better to do a little, and to do 
it well and thoroughly, than to do a great deal 
poorly. He was therefore in no hurry to throw oft 
into the seething world a multitude of books. He 
had no ambition to shine as a writer and to keep 
himself in the world's eye. Apparently, he wa: 
quite indifferent to the kind of fame to which so 
many aspire. He had nobler aims. He cherished 
a wiser ambition. He cared little for present pop 
ularity, he wrote for permanent effect and lasting 
usefulness. And thus year after year passed awa\ 
in the faithful endeavor to give greater complete- 
ness to the work before him, or to verify its state- 
ments, or to supply some missing link in the argu 
ment, or to correct some minor blemish that might 
have crept in, until he could in some degree satisfy 
his severe taste, his high sense of responsibility, 
and his conscientious love of the perfect truth. It 
is easy enough to make a book ; but he wished to 
make a book worth making and worth keeping. 
And this to one of so high a standard, of so fas- 
tidious a taste, of so self-exacting a love of accu- 
racy and completeness, and of so conscientious a 
purpose, was not easy. But the slow ripening of 
his mental harvests was amply compensated by 
the final richness of the product. It would be 
well, in this surfeiting age of half-made books, it 
more would follow the example. 

Mr. Norton's position as a theologian has al- 
ready been intimated, in the general account which 
we have given of his writings and labors. But it 
claims a more distinct and extended notice. It 



OF MR. NORTON. XXXV1J 

is an extremely interesting one; and one too for 
which, judged by its motives, even those who stood 
in opposition to him on either side must yield him 
their respect, as we do our grateful admiration. 
The true key to that position is found in his 
strong faith, beating through every pulse of his 
life, in the divine mission of Jesus Christ, and in 
his profound conviction of the supreme importance 
of the Christian revelation to all the best hopes of 
mankind. Misname him who will, if ever there 
was a believer in Christ, it was he. He was a 
believer with the head and with the heart too. 
He was as fully persuaded of the truth of Chris- 
tianity as of his own existence. The Gospel, — 
the Gospel of Christ, and not the Gospel of Cal- 
vin, — the Gospel, as it came fresh from heaven in 
its own native beauty and power, was in his eyes 
the most precious gift of the Good Father. And 
under this conviction, he felt it to be the work of 
his life, the work to which God called him, to de- 
fend the Christian revelation, and to set forth its 
heavenly character, with all the power which his 
Maker had given him, not only against the assaults 
of infidelity and scepticism without, but against 
the undesigned yet perilous treachery within. He, 
with a jealous care for the safety of the priceless 
treasure, stood on the watch to keep it intact, on 
which side soever the enemy might approach; and 
by his words of wisdom, not always heeded as 
they should have been, he threw new bulwarks 
around the faith that he loved with a strength of 
feeling proportioned to his strength of mind. 



XXXV111 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE 

With this intense faith, shining through his 
powerful intellect, burning in his pure heart, and 
ever urging him on with a calm but mighty im- 
pulse, he entered on his career, and pursued it 
consistently, through all the different phases of his 
life, to the end ; whether, as he best liked > he 
quietly labored by himself in the mine of truth, 
seeking goodly treasure and pearls for his Master, 
or, at his Master's call, girded on his armor for the 
battle, and fearlessly laid siege to the intrenched 
errors of the past, or with equal chivalry went out 
to meet the novel errors, home-born or of foreign 
race, that he saw springing up among us under 
the very walls of the temple of Christ. He was 
both a Reformer and a Conservative, as every 
wise and good man must be, who in the spirit of 
Paul resolves to prove all things, but to hold fast 
that which is good and true. At his very first ap- 
pearance in the theological arena, he was a bold, 
zealous, uncompromising assailant of the Ortho- 
doxy of the time. He as fearlessly maintained his 
views, as he had carefully arftt conscientiously es- 
poused them. u Nee temere nee timide" was the 
motto which he placed over the opening article of 
his first editorial work, and which he bore upon his 
banner through life. He stood ready to avow and 
to defend what he believed ; and he proved him- 
self as able as he was ready, uniting all the cour- 
age of Luther with all the scholarship of Erasmus. 
While others, from love of peace, or fear of giving 
offence, chose to maintain what seemed to them a 
justifiable and prudent reserve, he spoke out boldly 



OF MR. NORTON. XXXIX 

and fully the conclusions to which he had deliber- 
ately come. In his doctrinal views he was no half- 
way man, — no double-minded one ; and in his 
phraseology there was a studious avoidance of that 
vague mistiness of language, which is sometimes 
used as a reconciling veil, and is sometimes the 
cover of confused and cloudy ideas. Whenever he 
had occasion to express his opinions, he expressed 
them without obscurity and without reservation. 

As a champion of Liberal Christianity, Mr. Nor- 
ton stands, as a writer, unquestionably foremost 
in the field. In the important controversy under 
which its battles were fought at the commence- 
ment of this century, his was the leading mind. 
He furnished the strong weapons of argument and 
learning by which it best maintained its ground. 
Others who stood at his side had more of the gift 
of popular speech : his was the word of knowl- 
edge and of wisdom. He was the Moses in the 
Exodus from the orthodox realm ; Dr. Channing, 
the Aaron. The one was the eloquent rhetorician 
and advocate ; the other, the profound scholar and 
thinker and sure interpreter of the sacred word. 
But this zealous Reformer for Christ and the Gos- 
pel's sake was a no less zealous Conservative for 
Christ and the Gospel's sake, when the time called. 
And there was no inconsistency in his course, any 
more than in that of the leader of old, when, hav- 
ing shaken off the bondage of Pharaoh, he with- 
stood the innovations of Korah. In one case, he 
fought against ancient errors ; in the other, against 
the new. In both, he was contending, as he be* 



Xl BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE 

lieved, for the eternal truth, the truth as it is in Jesus 
When at a more recent period he wrote and pub 
lished his views concerning the modern rationalism 
and infidelity whose seeds, imported from the Old 
World, had struck root and were springing up in 
the New. — when he strove to tear up the poison- 
ous root, hidden under the perfumed flowers, and 
to put the Church and the community on their 
guard against it, — he was animated by the same 
spirit which had moved him from the beginning. 
He made no bigot's war upon liberty of thought 
and speech, but he had a right, and he felt himself 
bound, to unmask and to resist those doctrines and 
speculations which were leading, as he thought, to 
infidelity. As his hostility to Calvinism was the 
side-growth of his love to Christ and his love to 
God, so his severity against Straussism and Spi- 
nozism was but one of the offshoots of his rever- 
ence for the Saviour and his faith in the Gospel. 
It was the severity of an honest conviction, as 
honestly expressed, of the pernicious tendency oi 
the views which he opposed. He believed them 
to be, not only wholly unsound, but, whether so 
intended or not, hostile to Christianity, betraying 
it, like Judas, with a kiss, and in their tendencies 
finally destructive of all religious faith. Without 
entering at all into the question of the soundness 
or unsoundness of the views against which Mr. 
Norton uttered his sincere and solemn warning, 
we think that all must admit the long-sighted 
sagacity with which he foresaw the results of the 
tone of thinking then beginning to show itself in 



OF MR. NORTON. xli 

various forms, — the wisely prophetic ken with 
which he announced the direction and final de- 
velopments of the new school of German specula- 
tion. Just what he predicted came to pass. 

But in all his labors and conflicts, in his attack 
on the " Latest Form of Infidelity," as well as in 
his "Defence of Liberal Christianity," in his la- 
borious, life-continued study and exposition of the 
" Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels," 
and in his faithful, never-satisfied endeavors, per- 
severed in to the very last, to unfold the true mean- 
ing of those Gospels, and to clothe them in our 
own language in a form in which their beauty 
and power may be best seen, and the majesty of 
the Saviour's life shine out in its own undimmed 
light, he pursued a nobly consistent career. His 
profound faith in the Christian revelation, his in- 
tense conviction of its inestimable value, was, we 
repeat, the harmonizing key of his life. 

But Mr. Norton was not only an accomplished 
theologian, a powerful controversialist, a learned 
and indefatigable critic, a most able and zealous 
defender of the Christian revelation, a profound 
and original expositor both of the meaning of its 
records and the evidences of their truth ; he was 
also one of the pioneers of literary progress in this 
country, a man of letters, interested in the advance- 
ment of all good learning. He was a strong and 
graceful writer on other subjects besides those 
which formed the chief occupation of his life. 
He had a vein of fine poetic talent also, occasion- 
ally exercised in his earlier days and in his inter* 

4* 



Xlli BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICK 

vals of leisure, but only enough to open a glimpse 
of the wealth within. The few specimens which 
he has left behind are gems of rare lustre, finished 
of their kind. Apart from their beauty of thought 
and expression, they have a higher value derived 
from a higher source. The well-known " Lines 
written after a Summer Shower," which originally 
appeared in the first volume of the Christian Dis- 
ciple, are among the most beautiful in the lan- 
guage. The hymn of resignation, beginning with 
the words, 

" My God, I thank thee ! may no thought 
E'er deem thy chastisements severe," 

is a favorite one in our churches, and has soothed 

many a grief-stricken spirit. He did a good greater 

than he could know when he wrote it out of his 

own experience to be as angel music to the 

mourner. Another, written by him to a friend 

in bereavement, beginning, 

" Oh, stay thy tears ! for they are blest, 
Whose days are past, whose toil is done," 

is in a similar spirit and of similar beauty. 

Whenever we read the scattered effusions of his 
Christian muse,* we are tempted to lament that he 
has left us so few of these polished diamonds of 
thought, till we remember that he was in quest of 
other and larger treasures, hidden in the mine. 
He had but one life to work with ; and it must 
select its prize, leaving the rest, however bright 
and sparkling, unsought, or with now and then a 

* These were collected into a small volume in 1853, and a few 
copies printed for private distribution among his friends 



OP MR. NORTON. xliii 

passing glance and touch. And yet the little that 
he did in this way shows how much good even a 
little well done may do, when it is cast in beauti- 
ful forms. 

But we pass on to what is much greater in God's 
eye than any work of genius, however brilliant, or 
any product of thought, however elaborate and 
mature. Mr. Norton's character and life were 
marked by the high virtues, the fruits of a Chris- 
tian faith, whose rich aroma breathes through his 
written works. 

To say that he had none of "those infirmities 
which," to use his own words, " have clung to the 
best and wisest," would be ascribing to him a 
perfection which has belonged to but one who has 
lived on the earth. To say that he never erred in 
opinion or in action, would be to say what no man 
can venture to say of himself or of any other. 
Certainly he, who was truth itself, would claim 
no such exemption from human frailty. But 
towering above these errors and infirmities, what- 
ever they were, which, however magnified to the 
fault-finding eye, disappeared from the friend's, 
there were virtues which the world will not will- 
ingly let die, and which will make him still a 
blessing to it in death, as he was a benefactor to 
it in life. And that which we think would be first 
and above all remembered by those who had the 
happiness to enjoy his friendship and to listen to 
his wise discourse, whether in the lecture-room or 
in his delightful home, was the peculiar devout- 
ness of his spirit, — the profoundly religious tone 



XllV BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE 

of thought and of sentiment which seemed to 
form the atmosphere in which he lived, — the 
unformal, unostentatious, but deep piety, so per- 
fectly sincere and unaffected, that made his pres- 
ence like the air of a temple, — the ever-present 
sense of those higher relations in which we stand 
to God and to eternity, springing naturally out 
of that strong faith in Christ and in his truth 
which had struck down its roots into his whole 
being. 

No man could be at all intimate with him, or be 
brought into near communication with him, either 
as a friend or a pupil, without receiving religious 
impressions such as few men whom we have 
known have the power to impart. There was 
something mightier than any common eloquence, 
which entered into the hearer's soul and led it by 
a calm and spiritual force into the presence of God 
and of things unseen and eternal. And this high 
religiousness of spirit — born of his vital Christian 
faith — was seen in union with other virtues which 
are the proper fruits of that faith. Purity of heart, 
singleness of purpose, devotion to duty, integrity 
of dealing, perfect openness and honorableness in 
all the affairs of life, marked bis whole career. 
Truth — truth in thought, truth in speech, truth 
in manner, truth in conduct — shone through his 
life. He especially honored it in others ; it made 
a vital part of his own being. All shams and false- 
hoods, all equivocations and manoeuvring, all forms 
of cant and hypocrisy, and all affectations of every 
kind, were therefore peculiarly offensive to his 



OF MR. NORTON. XIV 

sincere and upright spirit. And in close union, as 
it commonly is, with his perfect truthfulness, was 
that Christian courage which dares always to 
choose its own course and to carry it out without 
asking leave except of conscience. He held de- 
cided opinions upon every important subject that 
bears upon human life and duty in all a man's 
public and private relations, and he acted upon 
them. He did not fear to differ from others, or to 
walk apart from others ; — 

" Nor number nor example with him wrought 
To swerve from truth, or change his constant mind, 
Though single." 

Without any false pride of singularity, he cherished 
a self-relying independence of thought and of ac- 
tion. As in his religious views and his religious 
course, so in all other things he judged and acted 
for himself: and judged and acted from high prin- 
ciples fearlessly applied. He sought to try each 
case at the tribunal of a thoroughly Christianized 
reason, and to follow out what he accepted as its 
final decisions. We need not say that he always 
did what was best, but we may say, what is in 
truth greater praise, that he always did what he 
thought was right. 

But his independence was not a selfish or cold- 
hearted independence. It was united with the 
truest and warmest kindness, when that kindness 
was called for. His retired habits, the habits of 
a student and scholar, — the individuality of his 
character and life, — his slowness and reserve of 
manner, — his occasional severity of speech, — the 



Xlvi BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE 

flashes of a pure and just indignation against 
some act of folly, meanness, or misconduct, — his 
decided and stern condemnation of opinions which 
he held to be false and dangerous, — were not con- 
nected with any want of Christian tenderness or 
Christian sympathy. It was a part of his creed , 
and one of the first lessons which his pupils in the 
Christian ministry learned from him, that timely 
reproof is often the truest friendship ; that the ex 
posure of error, and the cure of it by the needed 
caustic of sharp and plain-spoken truth, may be 
the highest charity. But those who knew him 
best knew the real warmth of his heart and the 
real kindness — the kindness both of feeling and 
of principle — which were sometimes hidden from 
a stranger's eye by the peculiarities of his manner. 
He was no ascetic, no declaimer against the inno- 
cent festivities of the world, no morose hater or 
proud scorner of its pleasant triflings, no misan- 
thrope, shunning converse with men. If he min- 
gled little in the gayer scenes of society, it wa& 
more from his engrossment in the studies that 
occupied his thoughts, and from the want of a 
quick flow of animal spirits, than from any unso- 
cial feeling. As a friend, a neighbor, a citizen, he 
was ever prompt to do his part. His hand was 
always open to every work of charity. He knew 
the Christian blessedness of giving. His generous 
consideration of others, his readiness to help when- 
ever his help was needed, his benevolence to the 
poor, ever guided by his strong good-sense, his 
judicious and thoughtful kindness in all the varied 



OF MR. NORTON. xlvil 

occasions of life, his quiet and unostentatious chari- 
ties, will be remembered by many who shared in 
them. They were much better known to himself 
than to the world. His alms were not done to be 
seen of men. 

But it was on the nearer circle around him, on 
the Christian home in which he lived, that his 
strong and tender affections beamed out most 
brightly and warmly. What he was there, where 
the true character most fully shows itself, they 
know whose loss is the greatest, and whose grief 
will be ever mingled with gratitude for the great 
blessings which they have enjoyed in the privileges 
of his society, in the tenderness of his love, in the 
wisdom of his counsels, in the Christian influence 
of his conversation and his life. To them his 
memory will be peculiarly blessed, for it will be 
associated, not only with the tenderest, most deli- 
cate, most sympathizing love, but with the highest, 
holiest, happiest influences, — influences that do 
not end at the grave. No man had more exalted 
views than he of the duties and the happiness of 
domestic life, and of the place which Christianity 
should hold in it. 

We know how difficult it is to draw an unbi- 
assed portrait, in all points true to the life, of one 
in whom we have a personal interest, or whose 
name is identified with the religious faith which 
is as father and mother to our hearts. In that 
which we have attempted, we have at least wished 
to avoid the exaggeration which in everything the 
subject of it so greatly disliked. But it seems to 



Xlviii BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE 

us, as we look upon it again, that a word more 
may be necessary to place it in its full light, and 
to give its features their true and best expression. 
We believe that, on certain points of character, a 
false impression exists in the minds of some who 
did not know him intimately. He was on some 
accounts in danger of being misunderstood and 
misjudged. In this, however, he shared the lot of 
many others, whom the world sees through a glass 
darkly. Every virtue has its shadow mocking it. 
The near friend sees the virtue; the distant or 
the fault-seeking eye may catch only the distorted 
shadow. A man of strong thoughts and strong 
feelings, Mr. Norton spoke strongly the truth that 
was in his heart. When he aimed a blow at an 
unsound doctrine or a dangerous error, he did not 
strike with the sword in the sheath. He did not 
attack it with roundabout phrases or with soft 
innuendo. What he said, he said in plain Eng- 
lish, never coarse indeed, but sometimes caustic, 
always open and sincere. He was "a good 
hater " ; not of persons, however, but of the false 
opinions with which those persons were identified, 
of which they were in his mind the living expo- 
nents. He was a man of very decided convic- 
tions, and not a man given to compromises in 
important matters. What he thought right to be 
done or to be said, he went forward to do or to 
gay ; alone, if necessary. He was not at all studious 
of the arts of popularity. From the course and 
habits of his life he was secluded from that free 
personal intercourse with others of opposite opin- 



OF MR. NORTON. xllX 

ions v which is necessary to a perfect understanding 
on either side. Hence, those who came into col- 
lision with him, and those who saw him at a dis- 
tance in those situations in which the strong and 
sharp points of his character were made to pro- 
trude, would be likely to do him injustice. A 
stranger or an opponent might sometimes, from 
their point of view, imagine him to be deficient in 
the softer and meeker virtues. The friend at his 
side, seeing him as he was, knew that nothing 
could be farther from the truth. Under the con- 
stitutional coldness and restraint of his manner, 
and the stateliness and occasional sternness of his 
speech, there was a deep enthusiasm of character, 
a sincere warmth of feeling, the truest and most 
considerate tenderness. A person living with him 
or in intimate connection with him would be par- 
ticularly struck with his gentleness, indulgence, and 
quick human sympathies ; he would see as much 
in him of the John, as others had seen of the Paul. 
If he was ever severe towards any, it was from the 
love which he bore to religion and to truth. If he 
erred, in word or in deed, his errors were the errors 
- of a true-hearted and true-spoken man. 

A most pure and gifted spirit has gone from us 
to join the host that " have crossed the flood." 
He has ascended from the study of God's word 
and works in this lower world, where, with all his 
knowledge, he could know but in part, to the 
study of God's word and works in that more 
glorious sphere, where, with Buckminster and 
Eliot, he will know even as he is known. 

5 



I BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF MR. NORTON. 

The hymn,* little known, we believe, which lie 
composed many years ago for the Christian's 
dirge, was written unconsciously for his own 
funeral. It now chants for us, as we stand in 
spirit at his grave, the farewell of many hearts 
that honor and bless his memory. 

" He has gone to his God ; he has gone to his home ; 
No more amid peril and error to roam. 
His eyes are no longer dim, 

His feet no more will falter j 
No grief can follow him, 

No pang his cheek can alter. 

41 There are paleness, and weeping, and sighs below , 
For our faith is faint, and our tears will flow : 
But the harps of heaven are ringing ; 

Glad angels come to greet him; 
And hymns of joy are singing, 

While old friends press to meet him. 

M O honored, beloved ! to earth unconfined, 
Thou hast soared on high, thou hast left us behind ; 
But our parting is not for ever : 

We will follow thee, by heaven's light, 
Where the grave cannot dissever 
The souls whom God will unite." 

* His first contribution to the Christian Examiner, and the first of 
its poetical articles. Vol. I p. 39. 



STATEMENT OF REASONS. 



PREFACE. 



In tlie year 1819, I published an article in a 
periodical work,* of which a number of copies 
were struck off separately under the title that 
I have given to this volume. I have since been 
requested to reprint it, and some years ago 
undertook to revise and make some additions 
to it for that purpose. Being, however, inter- 
rupted, I laid by my papers, and had given up 
the intention,, at least for an indefinite time. 
But having lately received an application from 
a highly esteemed friend, strongly urging its 
republication, I resumed the task; and the 
result has been, that I have written a new 
work, preserving indeed the title of the for- 
mer, and embodying a great part of its con- 
tents, but extending to three times its size. 

I have said, " I resumed the task " ; and the 

* [The Christian Disciple. See Vol. I. New Series, pp. 370 -431. 
The article referred to was occasioned by Professor Stuart's Letters 
to Dr. Channing.] 



4 PREFACE. 

expression is appropriate, for the discussion is 
one in which no scholar or intellectual man 
can, at the present day, engage with alacrity. 
To the great body of enlightened individuals 
in all countries, to the generality of those who 
on every subject but theology are the guides 
of public opinion, it would be as incongruous 
to address an argument against the Trinity, as 
an argument against transubstantiation, or the 
imputation of Adam's sin, or the supremacy of 
the Pope, or the divine right of kings. These 
doctrines, once subjects of fierce contention, 
are all, in their view, equally obsolete. To 
disprove the Trinity will appear, to many of 
whom I speak, a labor as idle and unprofit- 
able as the confutation of any other of those 
antiquated errors ; and to engage in the task 
may seem to imply a theologian's ignorance of 
the opinions of the world, and the preposter- 
ous and untimely zeal of a recluse student, 
believing that the dogmas of his books still 
rule the minds of men. It would be difficult 
to find a recognition of the existence of this 
doctrine in any work of the present day of es- 
tablished reputation, not professedly theologi- 
cal. All mention of it is by common consent 
excluded from the departments of polite litera- 
ture, moral science, and natural religion ; and 



PREFACE. 

from discussions, written or oral, not purely 
sectarian, intended to affect men's belief, or 
conduct. Should an allusion to it occur in 
any such production, it would be regarded as 
a trait of fanaticism, or as discovering a mere 
secular respect for some particular church. It 
is scarcely adverted to, except in works pro- 
fessedly theological ; and theology, the noblest 
and most important branch of philosophy, has 
been brought into disrepute, so far, at least, as 
it treats of the doctrines of revealed religion, 
by a multitude of writers, who have seized 
upon this branch of it as their peculiar prov- 
ince, and who have been anything but philos- 
ophers. 

Why, then, argue against a doctrine, which 
among intelligent men has fallen into neglect 
and disbelief] I answer, that the neglect and 
disbelief of this doctrine, and of other doctrines 
of like character, has extended to Christianity 
itself. It is from the public professions of 
nations calling themselves Christian, from the 
established creeds and liturgies of different 
churches or sects, and from the writings of 
those who have been reputed orthodox in 
their clay, that most men derive their notions 
of Christianity. But the treaties of European 
nations still begin with a solemn appeal to the 



6 PREFACE. 

" Most Holy Trinity " ; the doctrine is still the 
professed faith of every established church, 
and, as far as I know, of every sect which 
makes a creed its bond of communion ; and if 
any one should recur to books, he would find 
it presented as an all-important distinction of 
Christianity by far the larger portion of di- 
vines. It is, in consequence, viewed by most 
men, more or less distinctly, as a part of Chris- 
tianity. In connection with other doctrines, as 
false and more pernicious, it has been moulded 
into systems of religious belief, which have 
been publicly and solemnly substituted in the 
place of true religion. These systems have 
counteracted the whole evidence of divine reve- 
lation. The proof of the most important fact 
in the history of mankind, that the truths of 
religion have not been left to be doubtfully 
and dimly discerned, but have been made 
known to us by God himself, has been over- 
borne and rendered ineffectual by the nature 
of the doctrines ascribed to God. Hence it 
is, that in many parts of Europe scarcely an 
intelligent and well-informed Christian is left. 
It has seemed as idle to inquire into the evi- 
dences of those systems which passed under 
the name of Christianity, as into the proof of 
the incarnations of Vishnu, or the divine mis- 



PREFACE. 7 

sion of Mahomet. Nothing of the true char- 
acter of our religion, nothing attesting its 
descent from Heaven, was to be discovered 
amid the corruptions of the prevailing faith. 
On the contrary, they were so marked with 
falsehood and fraud, they so clearly discovered 
the baseness of their earthly origin, that, when 
imposed upon men as the peculiar doctrines 
of Christianity, those who regarded them as 
such were fairly relieved from the necessity 
of inquiring, whether they had been taught by 
God. The internal evidence of Christianity 
was annihilated ; and all other evidence is 
wasted, when applied to prove that such doc- 
trines have been revealed from Heaven. 

It is true that in England, in some parts of 
Continental Europe, and in our own country, a 
large majority still desire the name of Chris- 
tians, and have a certain interest in what they 
esteem Christianity. Notwithstanding much 
infidelity and skepticism, more or less openly 
avowed, and notwithstanding that many, who 
call themselves Christians, regard the teach- 
ing of Christ only as containing, when rightly 
understood, an excellent system of doctrines 
and duties, without ascribing to it more than 
human authority, yet there still exists much 
sincere and enlightened, as well as much tra- 



8 PREFACE. 

ditionary faith in Christianity, as a revelation 
from God. In the Protestant countries to 
which I have referred, there has been great 
freedom of inquiry into its character; wise 
and good men have labored to vindicate it 
from misrepresentations ; its evidences have 
been forcibly stated; the more obnoxious 
doctrines connected with it in the popular 
creeds have not of late, except in this coun- 
try, been zealously obtruded upon notice; 
the moral character required by it has been 
partially at least understood and inculcated ; 
and imperfectly and erroneously as our relig- 
ion may have been taught, it has still been 
a main support of public order and private 
morals. Many enlightened men, therefore, 
who have taken only a general view of the 
subject, and have never given their time or 
thoughts to determine what Christianity really 
is, regard the prevailing form of religion with 
a certain degree of respect. Though they may 
disbelieve many of its doctrines, and have never 
separated in their own minds what is true from 
what is false, they think it, notwithstanding, 
the part of a prudent and benevolent man to 
let the whole pass in silence. They either do 
not advert to. Christianity at all ; or if they do, 
it is in ambiguous, though respectful terms, 



PREFACE. « 

and they refrain from implying eithei their 
belief or their disbelief of what are represented 
as its characteristic doctrines. There is also 
another class of able and intellectual men, who, 
perceiving the value of religion in general, sin- 
cerely embrace the popular religion as they 
find it in the creed of their church or sect; 
being bound to it, perhaps, by strong senti- 
ments and early associations, and believing 
that he who quits this harbor must embark 
upon a sea of uncertainties. They form a 
small exception to the remarks with which 
I commenced, respecting the prevalent disbe- 
lief of the doctrine of the Trinity, and other 
similar doctrines, by the more intelligent 
classes of society ; — an exception which does 
not extend to the ignorant, or bigoted, or 
mercenary defenders of a church or sect. 

But admitting these facts, what, after all, is 
the prevailing state of opinion and feeling re- 
specting Christianity in Protestant countries ] 
It is indicated by their literature. With some 
considerable exceptions, the productions of the 
English periodical press may be divided into 
two great classes. In one of them, you rarely 
find anything implying a sincere belief and 
interest in Christianity ; you find much that 
an intelligent Christian could not have writ* 



10 PREFACE. 

ten; and in some of the publications to be 
arranged in this class, you find many thinly 
veiled or naked expressions of scorn and 
aversion for what passes under its name, and 
especially for the established religion and its 
ministers. In the other class, you observe a 
party and political zeal for religion, the religion 
established by law, " the religion of a gentle- 
man," to borrow an expression from Charles the 
Second, — a zeal for the church and its dignities 
and emoluments, a zeal that accommodates itself 
easily to a lax system of morals, and which 
rarely displays itself more than in its contempt 
for those who regard religion as something 
about which our reason is to be exercised. 
But beside these two classes of publications, 
there is still another, extensively circulated, 
below the notice, perhaps, of those who belong 
to the aristocracy of literature, but which is 
sapping the foundations of society ; a class of 
publications addressed to the lower orders, in 
which Christianity is openly attacked, being 
made responsible for all the wickedness, fraud, 
oppression, and cruelty that have been perpe- 
trated in its name, and for all the outrages upon 
reason that have appeared in the conduct of its 
professors, or been embodied in creeds. There 
are other proofs equally striking of the very 



PREFACE. 11 

general indifference that is really felt toward 
Christianity ; of the little hold it has upon men's 
inmost thoughts and affections. The most pop- 
ular English poet of the day, who has been the 
object of such passionate and ill-judged admi- 
ration, appeared, not merely as a man, but as a 
writer, under every aspect the most adverse to 
the Christian character ; yet the time has been, 
when his tide of fashion was at its height, that 
one could hardly remark upon his immorality 
or profaneness without exposing himself to the 
charge of being narrow-minded or hypocritical. 
I observed not long since, in a noted journal, 
the editor of which is said to be a Professor of 
Moral Philosophy at Edinburgh, that he was 
spoken of by a writer, fresh from the perusal 
of his life by Moore, as having been throughout 
his whole course " a noble being," " morally and 
intellectually, " as all but " the base and blind " 
must feel.* The patriarch of German litera- 
ture has just left the world amid a general 
chorus of applause from his countrymen, to 
which a dissentient voice has for some time 
scarcely been tolerated among them. His pop- 
ularity may be compared with that which Vol- 
taire enjoyed in France during the last century. 

* The passage may be found in Blackwood's Magazine for Febnv 
ary, 1530, p. 417. 



12 PREFACE.. 

There may be different opinions respecting his 
genius. He has nothing of the brilliant wit of 
Voltaire, nor of his keenness of remark ; and 
nothing of the truly honest zeal in the cause of 
humanity, which is sometimes discovered by 
that very inconsistent writer. No generous sen- 
timent ever prompted Goethe to place himself 
in imprudent opposition to any' misuse of pow- 
er. The principles which are the foundation of 
virtue and happiness, were to him as though 
they were not. His strongest sympathies were 
not with the higher feelings of our nature. In 
his mind Christianity was on a level with the 
Pagan mythology, except as being of a harsher 
and gloomier character, and possessing less po- 
etical beauty. In the Prologue to his Faust, 
he introduces in a scene, meant to be ludicrous, 
the Supreme Being as one of his dramatis per- 
sonce, with as little reverence as Lucian shows 
toward Jupiter. I cannot say what there may 
be in his voluminous works ; but in those of the 
most note I have never met with the strong, 
heartfelt expression of a high moral truth or 
noble sentiment. In reading some of his more 
popular productions, it may be well to recollect 
the words of one incomparably his 3uperior: 
Cynicorum vero ratio tota est ejicienda ; est enim 
inimica verecundice, sine qua nihil rectum esse 



PREFACE. 13 

potest^ nihil honestum* As regards the pro- 
ductions of such writers, it has become the 
cant of a certain class of critics to set aside the 
consideration of their influence upon men's 
principles and affections and to consider them 
merely as productions of genius. In this mode 
of estimation it is forgotten that there can be 
no essential beauty opposite to moral beauty, 
and that a work which offends our best feel- 
ings can have no power over the sympathies 
of a well-ordered mind. 

The same absence of religious principle and 
belief which characterizes so much of the pop- 
ular literature of the day, appears also in the 
speculations of men of a high order of intellect. 
It is but a few years since, that the author of 
the "Academical Questions " f was praised as a 
profound thinker, in the most able and popu- 
lar of modern journals, with scarcely a remark 
upon the fact that his speculations conducted 
directly to the dreary gulf of utter skepticism. 
That work had its day, and is forgotten. I 
have just been turning over the leaves of an- 
other, " On the Origin and Prospects of Man," 
by one of the most powerful writers of our 

* " The whole system of the Cynics is to be rejected, as at war 
with modesty, without which there can be nothing right, nothing 
honorable." Cicero. [De Officiis, Lib. I. c. 41.] 

t fSir William Drummond.J 



14 PREFACE. 

times, the author of " Anastasius." * To ine it 
appears only a system of virtual atheism. It 
excludes all idea of God, according to the con- 
ceptions formed of him by a Christian. The 
Father of the Universe equally disappears from 
the later systems of the most celebrated Ger- 
man metaphysicians. That which affects to be 
regarded as the higher philosophy of the age, is 
as intelligible upon this point, though upon few 
others, as the system of Spinoza. Though all- 
seeing in its mists, it does not discern the God 
who made the world and all things therein, and 
whose mercy is over all his works. In a large 
proportion of writings which touch upon the 
higher topics of philosophy, we perceive more 
or less disbelief or disregard of what a Chris- 
tian must consider as the great truths of re- 
ligion. No one can read without interest the 
work which, just as he was terminating his 
brilliant career, Sir Humphry Davy left as a 
legacy, containing the last thoughts of a phi- 
losopher. Yet in this work, written as life 
was fast receding, instead of the Christian doc- 
trine of the immortality of the conscious indi- 
vidual, we find that his imagination rested on 
a dream, borrowed from Pagan philosophy, of 
the pre-existence and future glories of the think- 

* [Thomas Hope.] 



PREFACE. 15 

ing principle, assuming new modes of being 
without memory of the past. It is not simply 
to the appearance of such speculations that we 
are to look as characteristic of the age, but to 
the fact that their appearance excites so little 
attention, that they blend so readily with the 
prevailing tone of its literature. I should not 
be surprised if some intelligent readers of the 
work last mentioned should even have forgot- 
ten the passage referred to. 

Such being the state of things, we are led to 
inquire, Who are the expositors and defenders 
of religion, and what influence do they exert 
upon public sentiment ? In England the sci- 
ence of theology, so far as it is connected with 
revealed religion, has fallen into general neg- 
lect. Of those who treat its subjects, few 
deserve a hearing, and the few who deserve 
cannot obtain it. A few professedly learned 
works have of late appeared ; but for the most 
part they are mere compilations, made without 
judgment or accuracy, and conformed to the 
creed of the Church. There have been some 
bulky republications of old divines little suited 
to the wants of the age. Most other religious 
works that appear are evidently intended only 
for " the religious public " ; a phrase that has 
become familiar, and marks in some degree 

6* 



16 PREFACE. 

the character of the times. Should they pass 
beyond this narrow circle, they would, I fear, 
contribute nothing to render Christianity more 
respected. A very different class of writers 
is required to assert for religion its true char- 
acter and authority. In Germany there is a 
large body of theologians, of whom the most 
eminent have been able and learned critics. 
They have thrown much light upon the his- 
tory, language, and contents of the books of the 
Old and New Testament. They have released 
themselves from the thraldom of traditionary 
errors. But they have, in many cases, substi- 
tuted for these errors the most extravagant 
speculations of their own. Nor, with some 
exceptions, does the power of Christianity 
show itself in their writings. On the contrary, 
many of them, being infected with the spirit 
of infidelity that prevails over the continent 
of Europe, have regarded Christianity, not as a 
divine revelation, but merely as presenting a 
system of doctrines and precepts, for the most 
part probable and useful, when relieved from 
the mass of errors that have been added to 
what was originally taught by its founder. 
Christianity thus becomes only a popular 
name for a certain set of opinions. Its au- 
thority and value are gone. The whole proof 



PREFACE. 17 

, of the doctrines of religion, as taught by 
Christ, consists solely in the fact that he was 
a teacher from God. He did not reason; 
he affirmed. He adduced no arguments but 
his miracles. Considered as a self-taught 
philosopher, he did nothing to advance hu- 
man knowledge, for he brought no new evi- 
dence for any opinion. But considered as a 
teacher from God, he has provided the au- 
thority of God for the foundation of our faith. 
In our country, if I am not deceived by 
feelings of private friendship, true Christianity 
has found some of its best defenders. But 
the forms in which it is presented throughout 
a great part of our land, and the feelings and 
character of many who have pretended to be 
its exclusive disciples, are little adapted to pro- 
cure it the respect of intelligent men. They 
are producing infidelity, and preparing the 
way for its extensive spread. They are giving 
to many a distaste for the very name of re 
ligion, and leading them to regard all appear 
ance of a religious character with distrust or 
aversion. In no other country is the grossest 
and most illiberal bigotry so broadly exhibited 
as among ourselves. Nowhere else, at the 
present day, have so many partisans of a low 
order of intellect risen into notice, through a 



18 PREFACE. 

spurious zeal, not for doctrines, for these are 
changed as convenience may require, but for 
the triumph of a sect ; and no other region 
has of late been ravaged by such a moral 
pestilence as, under the name of religion, has 
prevailed in some parts of our land. — an in- 
sane fanaticism, degrading equally the feelings 
and intellect of those affected by it.* 

In past times, the false systems of religion 
that have assumed the name of Christianity, 
and ruled in its stead, have had a certain adap- 
tation to the ignorance, the barbarism, the low 
state of morals, and the perverted condition of 
society, existing contemporaneously with them. 
They were some restraint upon vice. They 
led man to think of himself as something more 
than a mere perishing animal. Mixed up with 
poison as they were, they served as an antidote 
to other poisons more pernicious. Though 
Christianitv was obscured bv thick clouds, vet 
a portion of its light and heat reached the 
earth. But the time for those systems has 

* If any one should think these expressions too strong, lei 
make himself acquainted will ich not Ion:: 

were taking place in the western part of : i New York. Au- 

thentic documents 

been confined to that part of our country. [So:r 
this subject may be found in the Christian Examiner for Ma; 
June, 1827, Vol. IV. pp 2-42-265; and for March, 1829, Vol. VI 
pp. 101 -130.] 



PREFACE. 19 

whollj passed. A wilder scheme could not be 
formed than that of re-establishing the Cath- 
olic religion in France, or calling a new Coun- 
cil of Dort to sanction Calvinism in Holland, 
or giving to Lutheranism its former power 
over men's minds in Germany. Their vitality 
is gone, except that it now and then manifests 
itself in a convulsive struggle. Yet zealots 
are still claiming for them the authority which 
belongs of right to true religion ; and to the 
inquiry what Christianity is, the public, offi- 
cial answer, as it may be called, is still re- 
turned, that it is to be found in the tradition- 
ary creed of some established church, or of 
some prevalent sect ; that it is to be identi- 
fied with the grim decrepitude of some obso- 
lete form of faith. We are referred back to 
some one of those systems that have dishon- 
ored its name, counteracted its influence, per- 
verted its sanctions, inculcated false and inad- 
equate conceptions of the religious character, 
and formed broods of hypocrites, fanatics, and 
persecutors ; that have been made to minister 
to the lust of power, malignant passions, and 
criminal self-indulgence ; and that have striven, 
if I may so speak, to retard the intellectual 
and moral improvement of men, seeing in it 
the approach of their own destruction. 



20 PREFACE. 

What, then, is to be done to give new power 
to the great principles of religion 1 What is 
to be done to vindicate its true influence to 
Christianity? We must vindicate its true 
character. It must be presented to men such 
as it is. The false doctrines connected with 
it, in direct opposition to the truths which it 
teaches, must be swept away. It is not enough 
that they should be secretly disbelieved ; they 
must be openly disavowed. It must be pub- 
licly acknowledged that they are utterly for- 
eign from Christianity. It is not enough that 
those who defend them should be disregarded 
or confuted. They must be so confuted as to 
be silenced. Those who would procure for 
Christianity its due supremacy in the hearts 
of men should feel that their first object is 
so to operate upon the convictions and senti 
ments of men, that the public sanction which 
has been given to gross misrepresentations of 
it shall be as publicly withdrawn. In pro- 
moting the influence of Christianity, the main 
duty of an enlightened Christian at the pres- 
ent day is to labor that it may be better un- 
derstood. Till this be effected, all other ex- 
ertions, it may be feared, if not ineffectual, 
will be mischievous, as prolonging the author- 
ity of error, rather than establishing the truth. 



PREFACE. 21 

But what interest can a philosopher or a 
man of intellect be expected to take in the 
squabbles of controversial divines \ "What im- 
pression is to be produced upon indifference, 
ignorance, traditionary faith, bigotry, and self- 
interest, by one who has nothing to conjure 
with but his poor reason ? Why be solicit- 
ous to cure men of one folly on the subject 
of religion, since it is sure to be replaced by 
another ? To him who should propose such 
questions, I might answer, that I do not so 
despair of mankind. I compare the nine- 
teenth century with the fifteenth, and I per- 
ceive that many hard victories have been won, 
and much has been permanently secured in 
the cause of human improvement. Truth and 
Reason, though they work slowly, work sure- 
ly. An abuse or an error, after having been 
a thousand times confuted or exposed, at last 
totters and falls, abandoned by its defenders ; 
and then 

" One spell upon the minds of men 
Breaks, never to unite again." 

The disputes of controversial divines, however 
mean the intellect, or vile the temper, of many 
who have engaged in them, do in fact concern 
the most important truths and the most perni- 
cious errors. Having given these answers, I 



22 PREFACE 

might then ask in return: Why should a 
Christian, with a deep-felt conviction of the 
efficacy of his religion to promote the best 
interests of mankind, be earnestly desirous 
that its influence may not be superseded and 
opposed by any of those false systems of doc- 
trine that have been substituted in its place % 
Why should one, not devoid of common sym- 
pathy with his fellow-men, care whether they 
believe the most ennobling truths, or some per 
nicious creed, respecting their God and Father, 
their nature and relations as immortal beings, 
their duty, motives, consolations, and hopes ? 

We know the efforts that are making by 
enlightened men in Europe, particularly in 
England, to spread intellectual cultivation 
among the uneducated classes of the Old 
World. So far as the knowledge thus com- 
municated is what may be called secular, it 
is beneficial in enlarging and exercising the 
mind, affording innocent entertainment, and, 
in some cases, furnishing the means of ad- 
vancement in life. But to the poor, as to 
every other class, it is not the knowledge of 
most value. Without the equal diffusion of 
religious truth, it may become an instrument 
of evil rather than of good. Mere intellectual 
cultivation is as likely to be a source of dis- 



PKEFACB. 23 

content and disquietude as of happiness. An 
access of knowledge may tend little to recon- 
cile a man to his situation. The new power 
it affords will be used according to the dis- 
position of him who possesses it. But you 
can impress no truth, you can remove no 
error, respecting the duties and hopes of man 
as an immortal creature of God, you can im- 
press no truth, you can remove no error, con- 
cerning religion, without surely advancing 
men in morals and happiness. This is the 
instruction most needed for all classes, but 
especially for the least informed. Among the 
highly educated, and those accustomed to the 
refinements of life, there are certain partial 
substitutes for religious principle ; — the feel- 
ing of honor, the desire of reputation, delicacy 
of taste, the force of public opinion, and a 
more enlarged perception of the sentiments 
of their fellow-men, which, when they act on 
the conduct of others, are generally on the 
side of virtue. The levities or the business 
of life, a ceaseless round of trifling or serious 
occupation, which hurries them on with little 
leisure to think or feel deeply, may have pre- 
vented them from becoming acquainted with 
the essential wants of our nature. But in 
preaching to the poor, not the heartless, re- 



24 PREFACE. 

volting, debasing absurdities of some estab 
iished creed, but the doctrines of Jesus Christ, 
we may give them consolations and hopes to 
be most intimately felt, new views of their 
nature, new motives and principles. It is on 
the diffusion of this sort of instruction among 
all classes, that the prospects of society now 
depend. Changes are coming fast upon the 
world. In the violent struggle of opposite 
interests, the decaying prejudices that have 
bound men together in the old forms of so- 
ciety are snapping asunder one after another. 
Must we look forward to a hopeless succes- 
sion of evils, in which exasperated parties 
will be alternately victors and victims, till all 
sink under some one power whose interest it 
is to preserve a quiet despotism I Who can 
hope for a better result, unless the great les- 
son be learned, that there can be no essential 
improvement in the condition of society with- 
out the improvement of men as moral and 
religious beings ; and that this can be effected 
only by religious truth \ To expect this 
improvement from any form of false religion, 
because it is called religion, is as if, in admin- 
istering to one in a fever, we were to take 
some drug from an apothecary's shelves, satis- 
fied with its being called medicine. 



FKEFACE. 25 

That a people may be happy in the enjoy- 
ment of civil liberty, a certain degree of knowl- 
edge and culture must be spread through the 
community. A general system of education 
must be established. Self-restraint must sup- 
ply the place of external coercion. The legiti- 
mate purpose of government is to guard the 
rights of individuals and the community from 
injury; and the best form of government is 
that which effects this purpose w T ith the least 
power, and is least likely therefore to afford 
the means of misrule and oppression. But 
the power not conceded to the government 
must be supplied by the force of moral prin- 
ciple and sentiment in the governed. What 
education, then, is required ; what knowledge 
is to be communicated ; what culture is ne- 
cessary ] I answer, not alone, nor principally, 
that education which the schoolmaster may 
give ; but moral culture, the knowledge of 
our true interests and relations. There may 
be much intellectual culture which will not 
tend even indirectly to form men to the ready 
practice of their duties, or to bind them to- 
gether in mutual sympathy and forbearance, 
unless it be united with just conceptions of 
our nature and the objects of action. Let us 
form in fancv a nation of mathematicians like 



26 PREFACE. 

La Place or La Lande, ostentatious of their 
atheism ; naturalists as irreligious and impure 
as Buffon ; artists as accomplished as David, 
the friend of Robespierre ; philosophers, like 
Hobbes and Mandeville, Helvetius and Dide- 
rot ; men of genius, like Byron, Goethe, and 
Voltaire ; orators as powerful and profligate 
as Mirabeau ; and having placed over them a 
monarch as able and unprincipled as the sec- 
ond Frederic of Prussia, let us consider what 
would be the condition of this highly intel- 
lectual community, and how many generations 
might pass before it were laid waste by gross 
sensuality and ferocious passions. So far 
only as men are impressed with a sense of 
their relations to each other, to God, and to 
eternity, are they capable of liberty and the 
blessings of social order. The great truths 
that most concern us are those on which our 
characters must be formed. But religion is 
the science that treats of the relations of man 
as a responsible, immortal being, the creature 
of God. By teaching the truth concerning 
them, religion, properly so called, discloses to 
us the ends of our being, preparing men, by 
virtue and happiness here, for eternal prog- 
ress in virtue and happiness hereafter. So 
far as what bears the name of religion teaches 



PREFACE. 27 

falsehoods concerning them, it becomes the 
ally of evil, counteracting the improvement 
of our race. False religion has been the com- 
mon sign, and often the most efficient cause, 
of the corruption and misery of nations. All 
great changes in the constitution of society for 
the purpose of delivering men from tradition- 
ary abuses, must be accompanied with a cor- 
respondent advance in religious knowledge, or 
they will be made in vain. Where the prin 
ciples of Christianity are operative, there only 
can men be released from the strong control 
of some superior power ; which, however 
profligately exercised, may find its own inter- 
est in preserving quiet among its subjects. 
True Christianity urges the performance of 
the duties of man to man, by the noblest and 
most effectual motives; and in a community 
where its influence were generally felt, how 
little would there be to apprehend from pub- 
lic oppression or private wrong X Where the 
spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. I apply 
the words of the Apostle in a different sense 
from that in which he used them ; but in one, 
the truth of which he would have recognized. 
In regarding the condition and changes of 
societies and nations, we are apt to look 
rather to the immediate occasions of events, 

7* 



28 PREFACE. 

than to their radical and efficient causes. A 
mere worldly politician, for instance, might 
think it scarcely worth consideration, that the 
established church should impose a creed 
which a majority of its clergy do not believe; 
or that oaths, not meant to be regarded, but 
enforced as a traditionary ceremony, and sub- 
scriptions, to which the conscience can hardly 
be cheated into assenting, should stand in the 
path of advancement in church and state. To 
a philosopher it may appear of far greater 
moment. Other topics, more exciting to the 
generality, he might deem of secondary impor- 
tance. This he might view as a deep-seated 
evil, working at the core, the natural progress 
of which would leave but a false and hollow 
show of religion and morals. Who is there 
that will deny the influence of true religion to 
promote the happiness of individuals and the 
good order of society % Who is there that 
will deny the mischiefs of superstition, false 
notions of God and our duty, bigotry, and 
what is produced as their counterpart, irre- 
ligion and atheism \ Why is it, then, that 
many are so little solicitous to discriminate, 
on this most important subject, truth from 
falsehood, that they fancy they are giving 
their countenance to the former, while sup- 



PREFACE 29 

porting the latter ; and that, if they aid the 
cause of what is called religion, they do not 
stop to inquire whether it be the religion that 
exalts, or the religion that degrades ] 

In the present state of information and pub- 
lic sentiment, it will be vain to attempt to give 
authority to false religion. The zeal of parti- 
sans, or the power of the state, will be equally 
ineffectual. The only important consequence 
of such attempts will be to disgust men with all 
religion. The experiment has, in one instance, 
been carried through. In France the forcing 
of the Roman Catholic faith upon the nation 
ended in the overthrow of all belief in Chris- 
tianity. The consequences that ensued had 
the effect, elsewhere, of frightening infidels 
into hypocrites and bigots ; and a sudden 
show of religion followed the French Revolu- 
tion. But from this, had it continued, as little 
was to be hoped, as from a procession with rel- 
ics and images going forth to stop a stream 
of lava in its course. It is only to true relig- 
ion that we must look for aid in the cause of 
human happiness. This alone, being in accord- 
ance with reason and with our natural senti- 
ments, will find its way to the hearts of men. 

The tract which follows in relation to some 



30 PREFACE. 

of those false doctrines that have prevailed, 
though it will give no new conviction to the 
great body of enlightened men, may perhaps 
awaken the attention of some to the grossness 
of those corruptions that have been connected 
with Christianity, and to the necessity of pre- 
senting it in a purer form, if its influence is to 
be preserved. It may tend a little to swell the 
flood of public sentiment by which they must 
be swept away. It may perhaps serve to con- 
vince some who have looked with offence upon 
the absurdities taught as Christian doctrines, 
and mistaken them for such, that one may be 
a very earnest believer, whose respect for such 
doctrines is as little as their own. But, espe- 
cially, it may serve to spread a knowledge of 
the truth among those who, from their habits of 
life, have wanted leisure to think and examine 
for themselves upon subjects of this nature; 
and who are obliged, as all of us are in a 
greater or less degree, to take many opinions 
upon authority, till they see reason to distrust 
the authority on which they have relied. In 
addressing myself to such readers, I may take 
the credit (it is but small) of having avoided a 
fault common in theological writings intended 
for popular use. I have not presumed upon 
their ignorance of the subject; I have not 



PREFACE 31 

made statements which in a more learned 
discussion I should be ashamed to urge ; I 
have given no explanations that I knew to be 
unsatisfactory, because they might seem plausi- 
ble ; I have made no propositions which I do 
not fully believe ; I have urged no arguments 
but what have brought conviction to my own 
mind ; I have written as one who, being fully 
persuaded himself, and regarding his subject 
as free from all doubt and difficulty, is satis- 
fied that nothing more is to be done than to 
explain to others in intelligible language the 
views which are present to his own mind. 

I have given one reason why it is little to 
my taste to discuss this doctrine of the Trin- 
ity. Whoever treats of the subject is liable 
to be confounded with a class of writers with 
whom an intelligent Christian would not will- 
ingly be thought to have anything in com- 
mon. By many who look with indifference 
on the whole discussion, he who contends for 
the truth will be placed on a level with those 
who defend error. Others will think that he 
is agitating questions which might better be 
left at rest ; and those who hold the tradition- 
ary belief will regard him as a disturber of the 
Christian community. It may, however, be a 
consolation to him to remember, that even Soo 



?2 PREFACE. 

rates — the great opposer of the sophists and 
false teachers of his day — was called \a\o$ 
teal filaios, prating and turbulent* and that the 
very same epithets, by a singular coincidence, 
were applied to Locke,f the most enlightened 
theologian of his age and nation. The feeling, 
however, naturally arising from the causes I 
have mentioned, might prevent one from en- 
gaging in this controversy, were it not for the 
deep sense which a sincere Christian must have 
of the value of true Christianity, and of the 
necessity of redeeming it from the imputa- 
tions to which it has been exposed. " c Love] 
says one of our old poets, ' esteems no office 
mean, 9 and, with still more spirit, ' Entire affec- 
tion scorneth nicer hands.' " $ 

But there are other causes which make this 
an unpleasant subject. It presents human na- 
ture under the most humiliating aspect. The 
absurdities that have been maintained are so 
gross, the zeal in maintaining them has been 
so ferocious, there is such an absence of any 
redeeming quality in the spectacle presented, 
that it spreads a temporary gloom over our 
whole view of the character and destiny ot 

* V. Plutarch, in Catone. [Cat. Maj. c. 23.] 
t By Wood, in his " Athena* Oxonienses." 
t These quotations from Spenser have thus been brought togethey 
by Burke. 



PREFACE. 33 

man. We seem ourselves to sink in the scale 
of being, and it demands an effort to recollect 
the glorious powers with which God has en- 
dued our race. While inquiring concerning 
the truths of religion, we appear to have de- 
scended to some obscure region where folly 
and prejudice are the sole rulers. We may 
remember, with a feeling of painful oppression, 
the mortifying language of Hume, in one of 
those tracts in which he speculates as coldly 
upon the nature and hopes of mankind as if 
he were a being of another sphere, bound to 
us by no common sympathies. " All popular 
theology, especially the scholastic, has a kind 
of appetite for absurdity and contradiction. If 
that theology went not beyond reason and 
common sense, her doctrines would appear 
too easy and familiar. Amazement must of 
necessity be raised ; mystery affected ; dark- 
ness and obscurity sought after ; and a foun- 
dation of merit afforded to the devout votaries, 
who desire an opportunity of subduing their 
rebellious reason by the belief of the most un- 
intelligible sophisms." " To oppose the torrent 
of scholastic religion by such feeble maxims as 
these, thatzY is impossible for the same thing to 
be and not to be, that the whole is greater than a 
'part, that two and, three make jive, is pretend- 



34 PREFACE. 

ing to stop the ocean with a bulrush " * And 
is this all that mankind have to hope ? Must 
this dreary prospect for ever lie before us ] Is 
this all that religion has been, and all that it 
is to be \ We trust not. Still, in the confu- 
tation of such doctrines as have been taught, 
the triumph, if it may be so called, is hum- 
bling. It is a triumph over our common 
nature reduced to imbecility. We discover 
not how strong human reason is, but how 
weak. That it can confute them implies no 
power; that it has been enslaved in their 
service makes us feel, almost with apprehen- 
sion, how far it may be debased. But the 
hold which the doctrines of false religion have 
had upon the hearts of men has never been 
proportioned to the extent in which they 
have been professed. The truths of Chris- 
tianity have maintained a constant struggle 
with the opposite errors that have been con- 
nected with them. At the present time there 
are many who acquiesce in these errors, and 
who even regard them with traditionary respect, 
in whose minds they lie inert and harmless. 

But the very circumstance last mentioned 
adds to the unpleasant character of the dis- 
cussion that follows. Every one in his writ- 

* [Natural History of Religion, Sect. XI.] 



PREFACE. «*5 

ings sometimes turns his thoughts to those 
individuals whose approbation would give 
him most pleasure, and whose good opinion 
he would most desire to confirm. Among 
those to whom my thoughts recur, there are 
friends from whom I can hope for no sympa 
thy in my present task. A difference of opin 
ion upon this or any other subject cannot 
lessen my respect or love for them; and 
should the present work chance to fall in 
their way, I could almost wish to know, that 
this were the only paragraph that had fixed 
their attention. I beg them to believe that I 
am no zealot, no partisan of a sect, no dis- 
turber of social intercourse by a spirit of 
proselytism ; and that where I see the fruits 
of true religion, I have no wish to conform 
the faith from which they proceed to the 
standard of my own. The same opinions, 
true or false, may be held in a very different 
temper, with very different associations, and 
with very different effects upon character. 
The doctrines most pernicious in their gen- 
eral results may be innoxious in many par- 
ticular cases. The same system of faith which 
established its autos de fe in Spain, number- 
ing its victims by tens of thousands, and sink- 
ing that country to the lowest debasement, 



36 PREFACE. 

may have been consistent in Fenelon with 
every virtue under heaven. 

I have but a few words more to say in this 
connection. The tract that follows relates 
only to one class of those false doctrines that 
have been represented as doctrines of Chris- 
tianity. There are others equally or more 
important. To re-establish true Christianity 
must be a work of long and patient toil, to be 
effected far more by the general diffusion of 
religious knowledge, than by direct contro- 
versy. The views and results to which a few 
intelligent scholars may have arrived, must be 
made the common property of the community. 
Essential and inveterate errors present them- 
selves in every department of Christian the- 
ology. False religion has thrown its veil over 
the character, and perverted the meaning, of 
the books of the Old and New Testament. 
Of the immense mass of volumes concerning 
revealed religion, there is but a scanty num- 
ber in which some erroneous system does not 
form the basis of what is taught. In many 
of the most important branches of inquiry, a 
common Christian can find no trustworthy 
and sufficient guide. Of the multitude of 
topics more immediately connected with Chris- 
tianity, there is scarcely one which does not 



PREFACE. 37 

require to be examined anew from its founda- 
tion, and discussed in a manner very different 
from what it has been. Religion must be 
taken, I will not say out of the hands of 
priests, — that race is passing away, — but 
out of the hands of divines, such as the gen- 
erality of divines have been ; and its exposi- 
tion and defence must become the study of 
philosophers, as being the highest philosophy. 
Some degree of attention to the fact is neces- 
sary, to be aware of the general and gross ig- 
norance that exists concerning almost every 
subject connected with our faith. But they 
who would communicate the instruction which 
is so much needed, must expect to be con- 
tinually impeded and resisted by prejudice 
and misapprehension. Let them, however, 
understand their task and qualify themselves 
for it. In the present state of opinion in the 
world, it is evident that he is assuming a re- 
sponsibility for which he is wholly unfit, who 
comes forward as a teacher or defender of 
Christianity, without having prepared himself 
by serious thought and patient study. The 
traditionary believer, if he have taken this re- 
sponsibility upon himself, should stop in his 
course, till he has ascertained whether he is 
doing good or evil. A conflict between re- 



38 PREFACE. 

ligioii and irreligion has begun, which may 
not soon be ended ; and in this conflict, Chris- 
tianity must look for aid, not to zealots, but 
to scholars and philosophers. Our age is not 
one in which there can be an esoteric doctrine 
for the intelligent, and an exoteric for the un- 
informed. The public profession of systems 
of faith by Christian nations and churches, 
which are not the faith of the more enlight- 
ened classes of society, has produced a state 
of things that, it would seem, cannot long 
continue. We may hope that in Protestant 
countries its result will not be, as it w r as in 
France, general infidelity. We may hope 
that it will not end in a mere struggle be- 
tween fanaticism and irreligion, as seems to 
be the tendency of things in some parts of 
our own country. But these results can be 
prevented only by awakening men's minds to 
inquire, What Christianity is ] How far it 
has been misrepresented % What are its evi- 
dences % What is its value ? And what is 
to be done to remove those errors which now 
deprive it of its power ? 

[Cambridge, 1833.] 



STATEMENT OF REASONS. 



SECTION L 



PURPOSE OP THIS WORK. 



I propose, in what follows, to give a view of the 
doctrines of Trinitarians respecting the nature of 
God and the person of Christ ; to state the reasons 
for not believing those doctrines ; and to show in 
what manner the passages of Scripture urged in 
their support ought to be regarded. 



9» 



SECTION II. 

THE PROPER MODERN DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY CONTRA- 
DICTORY IN TERMS TO THAT OF THE UNITY OF GOD. — 
FORMS IN WHICH THE DOCTRINE HAS BEEN STATED, 

WITH REMARKS. THE DOCTRINE THAT CHRIST IS BOTH 

GOD AND MAN, A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS. NO PRE- 
TENCE THAT EITHER DOCTRINE IS EXPRESSLY TAUGHT 

IN THE SCRIPTURES. THE MODE OF THEIR SUPPOSED 

PROOF WHOLLY BY WAY OF INFERENCE. 

The proper modern doctrine of the Trinity, as it 
appears in the creeds of latter times, is, that there 
are three persons in the Divinity, who equally pos- 
sess all divine attributes ; and the doctrine is con- 
nected with an explicit statement that there is but 
one God. Now, this doctrine is to be rejected, 
because, taken in connection with that of the 
unity of God, it is essentially incredible ; one 
which no man, who has compared the two doc- 
trines together with right conceptions of both, ever 
did or ever could believe. Three persons, each 
equally possessing divine attributes, are three 
Gods. A person is a being. No one who has 
any correct notion of the meaning of words will 
deny this. And the being who possesses divine 
attributes must be God or a God. The doctrine 
of the Trinity, then, affirms that there are three 
Gods. It is affirmed at the same time, that there 



MODERN DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 41 

is but one God, But no one can believe that 
there are three Gods, and that there is but one 
Goi. 

This statement is as plain and obvious as any 
which can be made. But it is not the less forcible 
because it is perfectly plain and obvious. Some 
Trinitarians have indeed remonstrated against 
charging those who hold the doctrine with the 
"absurdities consequent upon the language of 
their creed " ; * and have asserted that in this 
creed the word person is not used in its proper 
sense. I do not answer to this, that, if men will 
talk absurdity, and insist that they are teaching 
truths of infinite importance, it is unreasonable 
for them to expect to be understood as meaning 
something wholly different from what their words 
express. The true answer is, that these com- 
plaints are unfounded ; and that the proper doc- 
trine of the Trinity, as it has existed in latter 
times, is that which is expressed by the language 
used taken in its obvious sense. By person, says 
Waterland, than whom no writer in defence of 
the Trinity has a higher reputation, " I certainly 
mean a real Person, an Hypostasis, no Mode, AU 

tribute, or Property Each divine Person is 

an individual, intelligent Agent ; but as subsisting 
in one undivided substance, they are all together, 
in that respect, but one undivided intelligent 

Agent The church never professed three 

Hypostases in any other sense, but as they mean 

* The words quoted are from Professor Stuart's Letters to the 
Rev. W. E. Channing, p. 23, 2d ed. 



42 ANCIENT DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

three Persons"* There is, indeed, no reasonable 
pretence for saying, that the great body of Trini- 
tarians, when they have used the word person, 
have not meant to express proper personality. He 
who asserts the contrary, asserts a mere extrava- 
gance. He closes his eyes upon an obvious fact, 
and then affirms what he may fancy ought to have 
been, instead of what there is no doubt really has 
been maintained. But on this subject there is 
something more to be said ; and I shall remark 
particularly, not only upon this, but upon the 
other evasions which have been resorted to, in 
order to escape the force of the statement which 
has just been urged 

I wish, however, first to observe, that the ancient 
opinions concerning the Trinity, before the Council 
of Nice (A. D. 325), were very different from the 
modern doctrine, and had this great advantage over 
it, that, when viewed simply in connection with the 
unity of God, they were not essentially incredible. 
According to that form of faith which approached 
nearest to the modern Orthodox doctrine, the Fa- 
ther alone was the Supreme God, and the Son and 
Spirit were beings deriving their existence from 
him, and far inferior, to whom the title of God 
could be properly applied only in an inferior sense. 
The subject has been so thoroughly examined, that 
the correctness of this statement will not, I think, 
be questioned, at the present day, by any respect- 

• Vindication of Christ's Divinity, pp. 350,351,3d ed 



ANCIENT DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 43 

able writer. The theological student, who wishes 
to see in a small compass the authorities on which 
it is founded, may consult one or more of the works 
mentioned in the note below.* I have stated that 
form of the doctrine which approached nearest to 
modern Orthodoxy. But the subject of the person- 
ality and divinity of the Holy Spirit, it may be ob- 
served, was in a very unsettled state before the 
Council of Constantinople (A. D. 381). Gregory 
Nazianzen, in his Eulogy of Athanasius, has the 
following passage, respecting that great father of 
Trinitarian Orthodoxy. " For when all others who 
held our doctrine were divided into three classes, 
the faith of many being unsound respecting the 
Son, that of still more concerning the Holy Spirit 
(on which subject to be least impious was 
thought to be piety), and a small number being 
sound in both respects ; he first and alone, or with 
a very few, had the courage to profess in writing, 
clearly and explicitly, the true doctrine of the one 

* Petavii Dogmata Theologica, Tom. II. De Trinitate ; particu- 
larly Lib. I. cc. 3, 4, 5. — Huetii Origeniana [appended to Tom. 
IV. of De la Kue's edition of Origen], Lib. II. Qusest. 2. — 
Jackson's edition of Novatian, with his annotations. — Whitby, Dis- 
quisitiones Modestae in CI. Bulli Defensionem Pidei Nicsenae. — 
Whiston's Primitive Christianity, Vol. IV. — Clarke's Scripture Doc- 
trine of the Trinity. — Priestley's History of Early Opinions, Vol. II. 
— Miinscher's Dogmengeschichte, I. §§ 85-111. — [Martini, Ver- 
such einer pragmatischen Geschichte des Dogma von der Gottheit 
Christi in den vier ersten Jahrhunderten. — Christian Examiner, Jan. 
1830, Vol. VII. p. 303, seqq.; Sept. 1831, Vol. XL p. 22, seqq.; 
July, 1832, Vol. XII p. 298, seqq.; and July, 1836, Vol. XX. p. 343, 
seqq. The articles referred to were written by the Rev. Alvan Lam- 
son, D.D.] 



44 MODIFICATIONS OF THE 

Godhead and nature of the three persons. Thus 
that truth, a knowledge* of which, as far as regards 
the Son, had been vouchsafed to most of the Fa- 
thers before, he was fully inspired to maintain in 
respect to the Holy Spirit." * 

So much for the original doctrine of the Trinity. 
I shall now proceed to state the different forms 
which the modern doctrine has been made to as- 
sume, and in which its language has been ex- 
plained, by those who have attempted to conceal 
or remove the direct opposition between this and 
the doctrine of the unity of God. 

1. Many Trinitarian writers have maintained a 
modification of the doctrine, in some respects simi- 
lar to what has just been stated to be its most an- 
cient form. They have considered the Father as 
the " fountain of divinity," whose existence alone is 
underived, and have regarded the Son and Spirit 
as deriving their existence from him and subordi- 
nate to him ; but, at the same time, as equall} 
with the Father possessing all divine attributes. 
Every well-informed Trinitarian has at least heard 
of the Orthodoxy and learning of Bishop Bull. His 
Defence of the Nicene Creed is the standard work 
as regards the argument in support of the doctrine 
of the Trinity from Ecclesiastical History. But 
one whole division of this famous book is em- 
ployed in maintaining the subordination of the 
Son. " No one can doubt," he says, " that the 

# Orat. XXI. Opp. 1.394. 



DOCTRINE OP THE TRINITY. 45 

Fathers who lived before the Nicene Council 
acknowledged this subordination. It remains to 
show that the Fathers who wrote after this Coun- 
cil taught the same doctrine." * Having given 
various quotations from different writers to this 
effect, he proceeds : u The ancients, as they re- 
garded the Father as the beginning, cause, author, 
fountain, of the Son, have not feared to call Him 
the one and only God. For thus the Nicene Fa- 
thers themselves begin their creed: We believe in 
one God, the Father omnipotent; afterwards sub- 
joining : and in one [Lord] Jesus Christ, — God of 
God. And the great Athanasius himself concedes, 
that the Father is justly called the only God, be- 
cause he alone is without origin, and is alone the 
fountain of divinity." f Bishop Bull next proceeds 
to maintain as the catholic doctrine, that though 
the Son is equal to the Father in nature and every 
essential perfection, yet the Father is greater than 
the Son even as regards his divinity ; because the 
Father is the origin of the Son; the Son being 
from the Father, and not the Father from the 
Son. Upon this foundation, he appears to think 
that the doctrine of the divine unity may be pre- 
served inviolate, though at the same time he con- 
tends that the Son, as a real person, distinct from 
the Father, is equally God, possessing equally all 
divine perfections, the only difference being that 
the perfections as they exist in the Son are de« 
rived, and as they exist in the Father are underived 

* Defensio Fidei Nicamsj, Sect. IV. c. 1. $ 3. t Ibid., § 6. 



46 MODIFICATIONS OF THE 

The same likewise, according to him, is true of the 
Spirit.* 

But in regard to all such accounts of the doc- 
trine, it is an obvious remark, that the existence 
of the Son, and of the Spirit, is either necessary, 
or it is not If their existence be necessary, we have 
then three beings necessarily existing, each possess- 
ing divine attributes; and consequently we have 
three Gods. If it be not necessary, but dependent 
on the will of the Father, then we say, that the 
distance is infinite between underived and inde- 
pendent existence, and derived and dependent ; be- 
tween the supremacy of God, the Father, and the 
subordination of beings who exist only through his 
will. In the latter view of the doctrine, therefore, 
we clearly have but one God ; but at the same 
time the modern doctrine of the Trinity dis- 
appears. The form of statement too, just men- 
tioned, must be abandoned ; for it can hardly be 
pretended that these derived and dependent beings 
possess an equality in divine attributes, or are 
equal in nature to the Father. Beings whose 
existence is dependent on the will of another 
cannot be equal in power to the being on whom 
they depend. The doctrine, therefore, however 
disguised by the mode of statement which we are 
considering, must, in fact, resolve itself into an 
assertion of three Gods ; or must, on the other 
hand, amount to nothing more than a form of 
Unitarianism. In the latter case, however objec- 

*Ibid., Sect IV.cc. 2-4. 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 



47 



tionable and unfounded I may think it, it is not my 
present purpose to argue directly against it; and 
in the former case, it is pressed with all the diffi- 
culties which bear upon the doctrine as commonly 
stated, and at the same time with new difficulties, 
which affect this particular form of statement. 
That the Son and the Spirit should exist neces- 
sarily, as well as the Father, and possess equally 
with the Father all divine attributes, and yet be 
subordinate and inferior to the Father, — or, in 
other words, that there should be two beings or 
persons, each of whom is properly and in the high- 
est sense God, and yet that these two beings or 
persons should be subordinate and inferior to an- 
other being or person, who is God, — is as incred- 
ible a proposition as the doctrine can involve. 

II. Others again, who have chosen to call 
themselves Trinitarians, profess to understand by 
the word person something very different from 
what it commonly expresses ; and regard it as 
denoting neither any proper personality, nor any 
real distinction, in the divine nature. They use 
the word in a sense equivalent to that which the 
Latin word persona commonly has in classic 
writers, and which we may express by the word 
character. According to them, the Deity con- 
sidered as existing in three different persons is the 
Deity considered as sustaining three different char- 
acters. Thus some of them regard the three persons 
as denoting the three relations which he bears to 
men, as their Creator (the Father), their Redeemer 
9 



48 MODIFICATIONS OF THE 

(the Son), and their Sanctifier (the Holy Spirit). 
Others found the distinction maintained in the 
doctrine on three attributes of God, as his good- 
ness, wisdom, and power. Those who explain the 
Trinity in this manner are called modal or nominal 
Trinitarians. Their doctrine, as every one must 
perceive, is nothing more than simple Unitarian- 
ism, disguised, if it may be said to be disguised, 
by a very improper use of language. Yet this doc- 
trine, or rather a heterogeneous mixture of opinions 
in which this doctrine is conspicuous, has been, at 
times, considerably prevalent, and has almost come 
in competition with the proper doctrine. 

III. There are others, who maintain, with those 
last mentioned, that, in the terms employed in 
stating the doctrine of the Trinity, the word per* 
son is not to be taken in its usual sense; but who 
differ from them, in maintaining that those terms 
ought to be understood as affirming a real three- 
fold distinction in the Godhead. But this is noth- 
ing more than a mere evasion, introduced into the 
general statement of the doctrine for the purpose 
of rescuing it from the charge of absurdity, to 
which those who thus explain it allow that it 
would be liable, if the language in which it is 
usually expressed were to be understood in its 
common acceptation. They themselves, however, 
after giving this general statement, immediately 
relapse into the common belief. When they speak 
particularly of the Father, the Son, or the Spirit, 
they speak of each unequivocally as a person in 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 49 

the proper sense of the word. They ascribe to 
them personal attributes. They speak of each as 
sustaining personal relations peculiar to himeelf, 
and performing personal actions, distinct from 
those of either of the others. It was the Son 
who was sanctified and sent into the world ; and 
the Father by whom he was sanctified and sent. 
It was the Son who became incarnate, and not 
the Father. It was the Son who made atone- 
ment for the sins of men, and the Father by whom 
the atonement was received. The Son was in 
the bosom of the Father, but the Father was not 
in the bosom of the Son. The Son was the Logos 
who was with God, but it would sound harsh to 
say that the Father was with God. The Son 
was the first-born of every creature, the image of 
the Invisible God, and did not desire to retain his 
equality with God. There is no one who would 
not be shocked at the thought of applying this 
language to the Father. Again, it was the Holy 
Spirit who was sent as the " Comforter" to our 
Lord's Apostles, after his ascension, and not the 
Father nor the Son. All this, those who assert the 
doctrine of three distinctions, but not of three per- 
sons, in the divine nature, must and do say and 
allow; and therefore they do in fact maintain, with 
other Trinitarians, that there are three divine per- 
sons, in the proper sense of the word, distinguished 
from each other. They have adopted their mode 
of stating the doctrine merely with a view of avoid- 
ing those obvious objections which overwhelm it 
as commonly expressed ; without any regard to its 



50 MODIFICATIONS OF THE 

consistency with their real opinions, or with indis- 
putable and acknowledged truths. The God and 
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is an intelligent 
being, a person. There may seem something like 
irreverence in the very statement of this truth ; but 
in reasoning respecting the doctrine of the Trinity, 
we are obliged to state even such truths as this. 
The Son of God is an intelligent being, a person. 
And no Christian, one would think, who reflects a 
moment upon his own belief, can doubt that these 
two persons are not the same. Neither of them, 
therefore, is a mere distinction of the divine nature, 
nor the same intelligent being regarded under dif- 
ferent distinctions. Let us consider for a moment 
what sort of meaning would be forced upon the 
language of Scripture, if, where the Father and the 
Son of God are mentioned, we were to substitute 
the terms, "the first distinction in the Trinity," and 
"the second distinction in the Trinity"; or, "God 
considered in the first distinction of his nature," 
and " God considered in the second distinction of 
his nature." I will not produce examples, because 
it would appear to me like turning the Scriptures 
into burlesque. 

If you prove that the person who is called the 
Son of God possesses divine attributes, you prove 
that there is another divine person beside the Fa- 
ther. In order to complete the Trinity, you must 
proceed to prove, first, the personality and then 
the divinity, of the Holy Spirit. This is the only 
way in which the doctrine can be established. No 
one can pretend that there is any passage in the 



.DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 51 

Scriptures, in which it is expressly taught, that 
there is a threefold distinction of any sort in the 
divine nature. He who proves the doctrine of the 
Trinity from the Scriptures, must do it by show- 
ing that there are three persons, the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Spirit, who are respectively 
mentioned in the Scriptures as each possessing 
divine attributes. There is no other medium of 
proof. There is no other way in which the doc- 
trine can be established. Of course, it is the very 
method of proof to which, in common with other 
Trinitarians, those resort, who maintain that form 
of stating the doctrine which we are considering 
It follows from this, that their real opinions must 
be in fact the same with those of other Trinita- 
rians. Indeed, the whole statement appears to be 
little more than a mere oversight, a mistake, into 
which some have fallen in their haste to escape 
from the objections which they have perceived 
might be urged against the common form of the 
doctrine. 

The remarks that have been made appear to me 
plain, and such as may be easily understood by 
every reader. I have doubted, therefore, whether 
to add another, the force of which may not be at 
once perceived, except by those who are a little 
familiar with metaphysical studies. But as it 
seems to show decisively, that the statement 
which we are considering is untenable by anv 
proper Trinitarian, I have thought, on the whole, 
that it might be worth while to subjoin it. 

In regard to the personality of the divine nature, 

9* 



52 MODIFICATIONS OF THE 

the only question is, whether there are three per- 
sons, or but one person. Those with whom we 
are arguing deny that there are three persons. 
Consequently they must maintain that there is 
but one person. They affirm, however, that theie 
is a threefold distinction in the divine nature ; that 
is, in the nature of this one person. But of the 
nature of any being, we can know nothing but by 
the attributes or properties of that being. Ab- 
stract all the attributes or properties of any being, 
and nothing remains of which you can form even 
an imagination. These are all that is cognizable 
by the human mind. When you say, therefore, 
that there is a threefold distinction in the nature 
of any being, the only meaning which the words 
will admit (in relation to the present subject) is, 
that the attributes or properties of this being may 
be divided into three distinct classes, which may 
be considered separately from each other. All, 
therefore, which is affirmed by the statement of 
those whom we are opposing is, that the attributes 
of that one person who is God may be divided 
into three distinct classes; or, in other words, that 
God may be viewed in three different aspects in 
relation to his attributes. But this is nothing more 
than a modal or nominal Trinity, as we have before 
explained these terms. Those, therefore, whose 
opinions we are now considering, are, in fact, 
nominal Trinitarians in their statement of the doc- 
trine, and real Trinitarians in their belief. They 
hold the proper doctrine, with an implicit acknowl- 
edgment in the very statement which they have 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. . 53 

adopted, that the proper doctrine is untenable ; 
and have involved themselves, therefore, in new 
difficulties, without having effected an escape from 
those with which they were pressed before. 

IV. But a very considerable portion of Trini- 
tarians, and some of them among the most emi- 
nent, have not shrunk from understanding the doc- 
trine as affirming the existence of three equal divine 
minds, and consequently, to all common apprehen- 
sion, of three Gods ; and from decidedly rejecting 
the doctrine of the unity of God, in that sense 
which is at once the popular and the philosophical 
sense of the term. All the unity for which they 
contend is only such as may result from those 
three divinities being inseparably conjoined, and 
having a mutual consciousness, or a mutual in- 
being- : which last mode of existence is again ex- 
pressed in the language of technical theology by 
the terms perichoresis and circumincession. u To 
say," says Dr. William Sherlock, " they are three 
divine persons, and not three distinct infinite minds, 
is both heresy and nonsense."* "The distinction 
of persons cannot be more truly and aptly repre- 
sented than by the distinction between three men ; 
for Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are as really dis- 
tinct persons as Peter, James, and John."f " We 
must allow the Divine persons to be real, substan- 
tial beings" J There are few names of higher au- 
thority among Calvinists than that of Howe. The 

* Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity,p. 66. London, 1690 
t Ibid., p 105. % I bic ^ P- 4 7 



54 * MODIFICATIONS OF THE 

mode of explaining the doctrine to which he was 
inclined is well known. He was disposed to re- 
gard the three divine persons as u three distinct, 
individual, necessarily existent, spiritual beings,'* 
who formed together "the most delicious society."* 
Those who give such accounts of the doctrine may 
at least claim the merit of having rendered their 
opinions in some degree consistent with each other. 
They have succeeded, at a dear purchase to be 
sure, in freeing their creed from intrinsic absurdity, 
and have produced a doctrine to which there is no 
decisive objection, except that it contradicts the 
most explicit declarations of the Scriptures, ana 
the first principles of natural religion ; and is, there- 
fore, irreconcilable with all that God has in any 
way taught us of himself. 

After the Council of Nice, that which we have 
last considered became gradually the prevailing 
form of the doctrine, except that it was not verj 
clearly settled in what the divine unity consisted. 
The comparison of the three persons in the Trinity 
to three different men was borrowed by Sherlock 
from the Fathers of the fourth century. Gregory 
Nazianzen, who himself maintained zealously this 
form of Orthodoxy, says that "those who were too 
Orthodox fell into polytheism,'' f i. e. tritheism. It 
might have been difficult to determine the precise 
distance from tritheism of those who were not too 
Orthodox. 

* Eowe s Calm Discourse of the Trinity in the Godhead. Worka 
Vol. II. p. 537, seqq., particularly pp. 549, 550. 
+ Orat I. Opp I. 16. 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 55 

This, then, is the state of the case. The propel 
modern doctrine of the Trinity is, when viewed in 
connection with that of the unity of God, a doc- 
trine essentially incredible. In endeavoring to pre- 
sent it in a form in which it may be defended, one 
class of Trinitarians insist strongly upon the su- 
premacy of the Father, and the subordination of 
the Son and the Spirit. These, on the one hand, 
must either affirm this distinction in such a man- 
ner as really to maintain only a very untenable 
form of Unitarianism ; or, on the other hand, must 
in fact retain the common doctrine, encumbered 
with the new and peculiar difficulty which results 
from declaring that the Son and Spirit are each 
properly God, but that each is a subordinate God. 
Another class, the nominal Trinitarians, explain 
away the doctrine entirely, and leave us nothing 
in their general account of it with which to con- 
tend, but a very unjustifiable use. of language. A 
third class, those who maintain three distinctions, 
and deny three persons, have merely put a forced 
meaning upon the terms used in its statement ; 
and have then gone on to reason and to write, in 
a manner which necessarily supposes that those 
terms are used correctly, and that the common 
form of the doctrine, which they profess to reject, 
is really that in which they themselves receive it. 
And a fourth class have fallen into plain and bald 
tritheism, maintaining the unity of God only by 
maintaining that the three Gods of whom they 
speak are inseparably and most intimately united, 
To these we may add, as a fifth class, those who 



56 MODIFICATIONS OF THE TRINITY. 

receive, or profess to receive, the common doctrine, 
without any attempt to modify, explain, or under 
stand it. All the sects of Trinitarians fall into one 
or other of the five classes just mentioned. Now 
we may put the nominal Trinitarians out of the 
question. They have nothing to do with the pres- 
ent controversy. And if there be any, who, calling 
themselves Trinitarians, do in fact hold such a sub- 
ordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father, that 
their doctrine amounts only to one form of Uni- 
tarianism, we may put these out of the question 
likewise. After having done this, it will appear 
from the preceding remarks that the whole body 
of real Trinitarians may be separated into two 
great divisions ; namely, those who, in connection 
with the divine unity, hold the proper doctrine, 
either with or without certain modifications, — 
which modifications, though intended to lessen, 
would really, if possible, add to its incredibility; 
and those who, maintaining the unity only in 
name, are in fact proper believers in three Gods. 
Now we cannot adopt the doctrine of those first 
mentioned, because we cannot believe what ap- 
pears to us a contradiction in terms ; nor the doc- 
trine of those last mentioned, because neither reve- 
lation nor reason teaches us that there are three 
Gods. If there be any one who does not acqui- 
esce in the conclusion to which we have arrived, 
I beg him to read over again what precedes, and 
to satisfy himself, either that there is, or that there 
is not, some error in the statements and reason- 
ings. The subject is not one with which we are 



HYPOSTATIC UNIOfc. 57 

at liberty to trifle, and arbitrarily assume opinions 
without reason. It behooves every one to attend 
well to the subject; and to be sure that he holds 
the doctrine with no ambiguous or unsteady faith, 
before he undertakes to maintain, or professes to 
believe it, or in any way gives countenance to its 
reception among Christians. 

With the doctrine of the Trinity is connected 
that of the hypostatic union, as it is called, or 
the doctrine of the union of the divine and human 
natures in Christ, in such a manner that these two 
natures constitute but one person. But this doc- 
trine may be almost said to have pre-eminence in 
incredibility above that of the Trinity itself. The 
latter can be no object of belief when regarded in 
connection w T ith that of the Divine Unity ; for 
these two doctrines directly contradict each other. 
But the former, without reference to any other 
doctrine, does in itself involve propositions as 
clearly self-contradictory as any which it is in the 
power of language to express. It teaches that 
Christ is both God and man. The proposition is 
very plain and intelligible. The words God and 
man are among those which are in most common 
use, and the meaning of which is best defined and 
understood. There cannot (as with regard to the 
terms employed in stating the doctrine of the 
Trinity) be any controversy about the sense in 
which they are used in this proposition, or, in other 
words, about the ideas which they are intended to 
express. And we perceive that these ideas are 



58 DOCTRINE OF THE 

wholly incompatible with each other. Our idea 
of God is of an infinite being ; oar idea of man is 
of a finite being ; and we perceive that the same 
being cannot be both infinite and finite. There is 
nothing clear in language, no proposition of any 
sort can be affirmed to be true, if we cannot affirm 
this to be true, — that it is impossible that the 
same being should be finite and infinite ; or, in 
other words, that it is impossible that the same 
being should be man and God. If the doctrine 
were not familiar to us, we should revolt from it, 
as shocking every feeling of reverence toward 
God, and it would appear to us, at the same 
time, as mere an absurdity as can be presented to 
the understanding. No words can be more des- 
titute of meaning, so far as they are intended to 
convey a proposition which the mind is capable of 
admitting', than such language as we sometimes 
find used, in which Christ is declared to be at once 
the Creator of the universe, and a man of sorrows; 
God omniscient and omnipotent, and a feeble man 
of imperfect knowledge.* 

I know of no way in which the force of the 
statement just urged can appear to be evaded, 
except by a sort of analogy that has been insti- 
tuted between the double nature of Christ, as it 
is called, and the complex constitution of man, as 
consisting of soul and body. It has been said 01 
implied, that the doctrine of the union of the 
divine and human natures in Christ does not 

* [See Professor Stuart's Letters, p. 48.] 



HYPOSTATIC UNION. 59 

involve propositions more self-contradictory than 
those which result from the complex constitution 
of man; — that we may, for instance, affirm of 
man, that he is mortal, and that he is immortal ; 
or of a particular individual, that he is dead, and 
that he is Jiving (meaning by the latter term, that 
he is existing in the world of spirits). The obvious 
answer is, that there is no analogy between these 
propositions and those on which we have re- 
marked. The propositions just stated belong to 
a very numerous class, comprehending all those in 
which the same term is at once affirmed and de- 
nied of the same subject, the term being' used in 
different senses ; or in which terms apparently op- 
posite are affirmed of the same subject, the terms 
being used in senses not really opposed to each 
other. When I say that man is mortal, I mean 
that his present life will terminate ; when I say 
that he is immortal, I mean that his existence 
will not terminate. I use the words in senses 
not opposed, and bring together no ideas which 
are incompatible with each other. The second 
proposition just mentioned is of the same char- 
acter with the first, and admits, as every one 
will perceive, of a similar explanation. In order 
to constitute an analogy between propositions 
of this sort and those before stated, Trinita- 
rians must say, that, when they affirm that 
Christ is finite and not finite, omniscient and 
not omniscient, they mean to use the words 
u finite n and " omniscient n in different senses 
in the two parts of each proposition. But this 
10 



60 DOCTRINE OF THE 

they will not say ; nor do the words admit oi 
more than one sense. 

A being of a complex constitution like man is 
not a being of a double nature. The very term 
double nature , when one professes to use it in a 
strict, philosophical sense, implies an absurdity. 
The nature of a being is all which constitutes 
it what it is ; and when one speaks of a double 
nature, it is the same sort of language as if he 
were to speak of a double individuality. With re- 
gard to a being of a complex constitution, we may, 
undoubtedly, affirm that of a part of this con- 
stitution which is not true of the whole being ; as 
we may affirm of the body of man, that it does 
not think, though we cannot affirm this of man; — 
or, on the other hand, we may affirm of the being 
itself what is not true of a part of its constitution, 
as by reversing the example just given. This is 
the whole truth relating to the subject. Of a 
being of a complex constitution, it is as much an 
absurdity to affirm contradictory propositions, as 
of any other being. 

According to those who maintain the doctrine 
of the two natures in Christ, Christ speaks of him- 
self, and is spoken of by his Apostles, sometimes 
as a man, sometimes as God, and sometimes qp 
both God and man. He speaks, and is spoken of, 
under these different characters indiscriminately, 
without any explanation, and without its being 
anywhere declared that he existed in these differ- 
ent conditions of being. He prays to that being 
whom he himself was. He declares himself to be 



HYPOSTATIC UNION. 61 

ignorant of what (being God) be knew, and unable 
to perform what (being God) he could perform. 
He affirms that he could do nothing of himself, or 
by his own power, though he was omnipotent. 
He, being God, prays for the glory which he had 
with God, and declares that another is greater 
than himself.* In one of the passages quoted in 
proof of his divinity, he is called the image of 
the invisible God ; in another of these passages, 
he, the God over all, blessed for ever, is said to 
have been anointed by God with the oil of glad- 
ness above his fellows ; and in a third of them, it 
is affirmed that he became obedient to death, even 
the death of the cross.f If my readers are shocked 
by the combinations which I have brought to- 
gether, I beg them to do me the justice to believe 
that my feelings are the same with their own. 
But these combinations necessarily result from the 
doctrine which we are considering. Page after 
page might be filled with inconsistencies as gross 
and as glaring. The doctrine has turned the Scrip- 
tures, as far as they relate to this subject, into a 
book of riddles, and, what is worse, of riddles ad- 
mitting of no solution. I willingly refrain from 
the use of that stronger language which will occur 
to many of my readers. 

The doctrine of the Trinity, then, and that of 
the union of two natures in Christ, are doctrines 
which, when fairly understood, it is impossible, 
from the nature of the human mind, should be be- 

* [See John xvii. ; Mark xiii. 32 ; John v. 30 ; xiv. 28 ] 

t [Colosoians i. 15, seqq.; Hebrews i. 8, 9; Philippians ii. 5 -8.] 



62 NEITHER DOCTRINE TAUGHT 

lieved. They involve manifest contradictions, and 
no man can believe what he perceives to be a con- 
tradiction. In what has been already said, I have 
not been bringing arguments to disprove these 
doctrines ; I have merely been showing that they 
are intrinsically incapable of any proof whatever ; 
for a contradiction cannot be proved ; — that they 
are of such a character, that it is impossible to 
bring arguments in their support, and unnecessary 
to adduce arguments against them. 

Here, then, we might rest. If this proposition 
have been established, the controversy is at an end, 
as far as it regards the truth of the doctrines, and 
as far as it can be carried on against us by any 
sect of Christians. Till it can be shown that there 
is some essential mistake in the preceding state- 
ments, he who chooses to urge that these doctrines 
were taught by Christ and his Apostles must do 
this, not as a Christian, but as an unbeliever. If 
Christ and his Apostles communicated a revela- 
tion from God, these could make no part of it, for 
a revelation from God cannot teach absurdities. 

But here I have no intention of resting. If I 
were to do so, I suppose that the old, unfounded 
complaint would be repeated once more, that 
those who reject these doctrines oppose reason to 
revelation ; for there are men who seem unable to 
comprehend the possibility that the doctrines of 
their sect may make no part of the Christian reve- 
lation. What pretence, then, is there for asserting 
that the doctrines in question are taught in the 



IN THE SCRIPTURES. 63 

Scriptures ? Certainly they are nowhere expressly 
:aught. It cannot even be pretended that they 
are. There is not a passage from one end of the 
.Bible to the other on which one can by any vio- 
lence force such a meaning as to make it affirm 
the proposition, "that there are three persons in 
the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost ; and these three are one God, the same in 
substance, equal in power and glory " ; or the 
proposition that Christ " was and continues to be 
God and man in two distinct natures and one per- 
son for ever." * There was a famous passage in 
the First Epistle of John (v. 7), which was believed 
to affirm something like the first-mentioned propo- 
sition ; but this every man of tolerable learning and 
fairness, at the present day, acknowledges to be 
spurious. And now this is gone, there is not one 
to be discovered of a similar character. There is 

NOT A PASSAGE TO BE FOUND IN THE SCRIPTURES 
WHICH CAN BE IMAGINED TO AFFIRM EITHER OF 
THOSE DOCTRINES THAT HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED AS 
BEING AT THE VERY FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIANITY. 

"What pretence, then, is there for saying that 
those doctrines were taught by Jesus Christ and 
are to be received upon his authority? What 
ground is there for affirming that he, being a man, 
announced himself as the infinite God, and taught 
his followers also that God exists in three persons ? 
But I will state a broader question. What pre- 
tence is there for saying that those doctrines were 



* [Westminster Assembly's Shorter Catechism, Answers 6 and 21-1 
10* 



64 REASONING OF TRINITARIANS. 

taught by any writer, Jewish or Christian, of any 
book of the Old or New Testament? None what- 
ever; — if, in order to prove that a writer has 
taught a doctrine, it be necessary to produce some 
passage in which he has affirmed that doctrine. 

What mode of reasoning, then, is adopted by 
Trinitarians? I answer, that, in the first place, 
they bring forward certain passages, which, they 
maintain, prove that Christ is God. With these 
passages they likewise bring forward some others, 
which are supposed to intimate or prove the per- 
sonality and deity of the Holy Spirit. It cannot 
but be observed, however, that, for the most part, 
they give themselves comparatively little trouble 
about the latter doctrine, and seem to regard it as 
following almost as a matter of course, if the for- 
mer be established. Now there is no dispute that 
the Father is God ; and it being thus proved that 
the Son and Spirit are each also God, it is inferred, 
not that there are three Gods, which would be the 
proper consequence, but that there are three per- 
sons in the Divinity. But Christ having been 
proved to be God, and it being at the same time 
regarded by Trinitarians as certain that he was a 
man, it is inferred also that he was both God and 
man. The stress of the argument, it thus appears, 
bears upon the proposition that Christ is God, the 
second person in the Trinity. 

Turning away our view, tnen, lor the present, 
from the absurdities that are involved in this prop- 
osition, or with which it is connected, we will pro- 
ceed to inquire, as if it w T ere capable of proof, what 
Christ and his Apostles taught concerning it. 



SECTION III. 

TH3 PROPOSITION, THAT CHRIST IS GOD, PROVED TO BJJ 
FALSE FROM THE SCRIPTURES. 

Let us examine the Scriptures in respect to the 
fundamental doctrine of Trinitarianism ; I mean, 
particularly, the Christian Scriptures; for the evi- 
dence which they afford will render any considera- 
tion of the Old Testament unnecessary. 

I. In the first place, then, I conceive, that, put- 
ting' every other part of Scripture out of view, and 
forgetting' all that it teaches, this proposition is 
clearly proved to be false by the very passages 
ivhich are brought in its support. We have already 
had occasion to advert to the character of some of 
these passages, and I shall now remark upon them 
a little more fully. They are supposed to prove 
that Christ is God in the highest sense, equal to 
the Father. Let us see what they really prove. 

One of them is that in which our Saviour prays : 
" And now, Father, glorify thou me with thyself, 
with that glory which I had with thee before the 
world was." John xvii. 5. 

The being who prayed to God to glorify him, 
cannot be God. 

The first verse of John needs particular explana- 
tion, and I shall hereafter recur to it. I will here 



66 REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

only observe, that if by the term Logos be meant, 
as Trinitarians believe, an intelligent being, a per- 
son, and this person be Christ, then the person 
who was with God could not have been God, 
except in a metaphorical or secondary acceptation 
of the terms, or, as some commentators have sup- 
posed, in an inferior sense of the word 0eo? (God), 
— it being used not as a proper, but as a common 
name. 

In John v. 22, it is said, according to the com- 
mon version, " The Father judgeth no man ; but 
hath committed all judgment unto the Son." 
" The Father judgeth no man, that is, without 
the Son," says a noted Orthodox commentator, 
Gill, " which is a proof of their equality." A 
proof of their equality ! "What, is it God to whom 
all judgment is committed by the Father? 

We proceed to Colossians i. 15, &c, and here 
the first words which we find declare, that the 
being spoken of is " the image of the Invisible 
God." Is it possible that any one can believe, 
that God is affirmed by the Apostle to have been 
the image of God ? 

Turn now to Philippians ii. 5-8. Here, ac- 
cording to the modern Trinitarian exposition,* we 
are told, that Christ, who was God, as the passage 
is brought to prove, did not regard his equality 
with God as an object of solicitous desire, but 
humbled himself, and submitted to death, even 



* [The exposition and translation of Professor Stuart are here 
referred to. See his Letters to Dr. Channing, p. 93.] 



REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 67 

the death of the cross. Can any one imagine, 
that he is to prove to us by such passages as 
these, that the being to whom they relate is the 
Infinite Spirit? 

There is no part of the New Testament in which 
the language concerning Christ is more figurative 
and difficult, than that of the first four verses of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews. But do these verses 
prove that the writer of the Epistle believed Christ 
to be God? Let us take the common version, 
certainly as favorable as any to this supposition, 
and consider how the person spoKen of is de- 
scribed. He is one appointed by God to be heir 
of all things, one by whom God made the worlds, 
the image of his person, one who hath sat down at 
the right hand of God, one who hath obtained a 
more excellent name than the angels. Is it not 
wonderful that the person here spoken of has 
been believed to be God ? And, if the one thing 
could be more strange than the other, would it 
not be still more wonderful that this passage has 
been regarded as a main proof of the doctrine ? 

Look next at Hebrews i. 8, 9, in which passage we 
find these words: "Therefore God, even thy God, 
hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above 
thy fellows." Will any one maintain that this 
language is used concerning a being who pos- 
sessed essential divinity ? If passages of this sort 
are brought by any one to establish the doctrine, 
by what use of language, by what possible state 
meats, would he expect it to be disproved ? 

There are few arguments on which more stress 



68 



REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



has been laid by Trinitarians, than on the applica- 
tion of the title M Son of God " to Christ. Yet one 
who had for the first time heard of the doctrine 
would doubt, I think, whether a disputant who 
urs:ed this argument were himself unable to un- 
derstand the meaning of language, or presumeo 
on the incapacity of those whom he addressed. 
To prove Christ to be God, a title is adduced 
which clearly distinguishes him from God. To 
suppose the contrary, is to suppose that Christ is 
at once God and the Son of God, that is, his own 
son, unless there be more than one God. 

I think it evident, that the conclusion of the fifth 
verse of the ninth chapter of Romans, and the quo- 
tation, Heb. i. 10-12, do not relate to Christ. I 
conceive that they relate to God, the Father. Put- 
ting these, for the present, out of the question, the 
passages on which I have remarked are among the 
principal adduoed in support of the doctrine. They 
nand in the very first class of proof texts. Let 
any man put it to his conscience what they do 
prove. 

Again, it is inferred that Christ is God, because 
it is said that he will judge the world. To do this, 
it is maintained, requires omniscience, and omnis- 
cience is the attribute of divinity alone. I answer, 
that, whatever we may think of the judgment of the 
world spoken of in the New Testament, St. Paul 
declares that God will judge the world by a man* 
(not a God) whom he has appointed. 

■ *A man," so the original should be rendered, not "that man" : 



REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 69 

Again, it is argued that Christ is God, because 
supreme dominion is ascribed to him. I do not 
now inquire what is meant by this supreme domin- 
ion ; but I answer, that it is nowhere ascribed to him 
in stronger language than in the following passage. 
" Then will be the end, when he will deliver up the 
kingdom to God, even the Father ; after destroy- 
ing all dominion, and all authority and power. 
For he must reign till He [that is, God] has put 

all his enemies under his feet And when 

all things are put under him, then will the Son 
himself be subject to Him who put all things 
under him, that God may be all in all." * 

No words, one would think, could more clearly 
discriminate Christ from God, and declare his de- 
pendence and inferiority; and, of necessity, his 
infinite inferiority. I say, as I have said before, 
infinite inferiority ; because an inferior and de- 

iv avhpi a) copiae. Acts xvii. 31. [Compare Acts x. 42 ; John y. 
22, 27; Kom. ii. 16.] 

* 1 Cor. xv. 24-28. [Compare Matthew xxviii. 1 8 ; Ephesians i. 
17-23 ;Philippians ii. 9-11 ; John iii. 35 ; Acts ii. 36. — As an il- 
lustration of the sort of reasoning which we often find in Trinitarian 
writings, it may, perhaps, be worth while to mention, that the first 
three passages just referred to, or rather fragments of them, are quoted 
in a publication of the American Tract Society, as incontrovertible 
proofs that Christ is God. See Tract No. 214, entitled "More than 
One Hundred Scriptural and Incontrovertible Arguments for be- 
lieving in the Supreme Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Christ/' The 21st of these " Arguments," for example, runs thus : — 
Christ is God, " because it is said he has a name that is above 
every name. Phil. ii. 9." The whole verse, of which a few words 
are thus quoted, reads : " Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, 
and given him a name which is above every name." See also 
Arg. I, 40, 72. J 



70 REASONING FROM THE N&W TEfc> I AJYIENT. 

pendent must be a finite being, and finite and 
infinite do not admit of comparison. 

It appears, then, that the doctrine under con- 
sideration is overthrown by the very arguments 
brought in its support. 

II. But further ; it contradicts the express and re- 
iterated declarations of our Saviour. According to 
the doctrine in question, it was the Son, or the 
second person in the Trinity, who was united to 
the human nature of Christ. It was his words, 
therefore, that Christ, as a divine teacher, spoke ; 
and it was through his power that he performed 
his wonderful works. But this is in direct con- 
tradiction to the declarations of Christ. He al- 
ways refers the divine powers which he exercised, 
and the divine knowledge which he discovered, 
to the Father, and never to any other person, or to 
the Deity considered under any other relation or 
distinction. Of himself, as the Son, he always 
speaks as of a being entirely dependent upon the 
Father. 

" If of myself I assume glory, my glory is 
nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me." 
John viii. 54. 

" As the Father has life in himself, so has he 
granted to the Son also to have life in himself." 
John v. 26. 

This is a verbal translation. A more intelligible 
rendering would be : " As the Father is the source 
of life, so has he granted to the Son also to be 
the source of life." 



REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 71. 

44 The works which the Father has given me to 
perform [i.e. has enabled me to perform], the very 
works which I am doing, testify of me, that the 
Father has sent me." John v. 36. 

" As the living Father has sent me, and I live 
dy the father," &c. John vi. 57.* 

" I have not spoken from myself; but He who 
sent me, the Father himself has given me in 
charge what I should enjoin, and what I should 

teach What, therefore, I teach, I teach 

as the Father has directed me." John xii. 49, 50. 

u The words which you hear are not mine, but 
the Father's who sent me." John xiv. 24. 

44 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me 
not." John x. 37. 

44 The words which I speak to you, I speak not 
from myself; and the Father, who dwells in me, 
himself does the works." John xiv. 10. 

44 The Son can do nothing of himself, but 
only what he sees his Father doing." John v. 19. 

44 When you have raised on high the Son of Man 
[i. e. crucified him], then you will know that I am 
He [i. e. the Messiah], and that I do nothing of my- 
self, but speak thus as the Father has taught me. 
And He who sent me is with me." John viii. 28, 29. 

I do not multiply passages, because they must 

* "In quoting the words as given above, I have followed the 
Common Version ; but the verse should be rendered thus : " As 
the ever-blessed Father sent me, and I am blessed through the Fa- 
ther, so he, whose food I am, shall be blessed through me." Zao>, 
in this verse, is used in the secondary signification which it so often 
has, denoting, lam blessed, lam happy. 

n 



12 REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

be familiar to every one. From the declarations 
of our Saviour, it appears that he constantly re- 
ferred the divine power manifested in his miracles, 
and the divine inspiration by which he spoke, to 
the Father, and not to any other divine person 
such as Trinitarians suppose. According to their 
hypothesis, it was the divine power and wisdom 
of the Son which were displayed in Jesus ; to 
him, therefore, should the miracles and doctrine 
**f Jesus have been referred ; which they never 
are. No mention of such a divine person ap- 
pears in his discourses. But of himself, as the 
Son of God, he speaks as of a being entirely 
dependent upon his Father and our Father, his 
God and our God. These declarations are de- 
cisive of the controversy. Every other argument 
might be laid aside. 

III. But, in the third place, the doctrine that 
Christ is God is opposed to the whole tenor of the 
Scriptures, and all the facts in the history of Christ. 
Though conceived by a miracle, he was born into 
the world as other men are, and such as other men 
are. He did not come, as some of the Jews imag- 
ined their Messiah would come, no man knew 
whence.* He was a helpless infant. Will any 
one, at the present day, shock our feelings and 
understanding to the uttermost, by telling us that 
Almighty God was incarnate in this infant, and 

* "We know whence this man is whereas when the Messiah 
oomes, no one will know whence he is ' John vii. 27 



REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 73 

wrapped in swaddling-clothes ? * He grew in 
wisdom, and in stature, and in favor with God 
and men. Read over his history in the Evange- 
lists, and ask yourselves if you are not reading the 
history of a man ; though of one indeed to whom 
God had given his spirit without measure, whom 
he had intrusted. with miraculous powers, and con- 
stituted a messenger of the most important truths. 
He appears with all the attributes of humanity. 
He discovers human affections. He is moved 
even to tears at the grave of Lazarus. He mourns 
over the calamities about to overwhelm his coun- 
try. While enduring the agony of crucifixion, he 
discovers the strength of his filial affection, and 
consigns his mother to the care of the disciple 
whom he loved. He was sometimes excited to 
indignation, and his soul was sometimes troubled 
by the sufferings which he endured, and which he 
anticipated. " Now is my soul troubled ; and 
what shall I say? Father, save me from this 
hour? But for this I came, — for this very hour."f 
Devotion is the virtue of a created and dependent 
being. But our Saviour has left us not less an 
example of piety than of benevolence. His ex- 

* Dr. Watts in one of his hymns says : 

" This infant is the Mighty God, 
Come to be suckled and adored." — B. I , H. 13. 

The language is almost too horrible to be quoted. — Dr. Watts 
was a man of piety, and of very considerable intellectual powers ; yet 
to this extreme point could his mind be debased by a belief of the 
doctrine against which we are contending. 

t John xii. 27. 



74 REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT, 

oressions of dependence upon his Father and upon 
our Father, are the most absolute and unequivocal, 
-fle felt the common wants of our nature, hunger, 
thirst, and weariness. He suffered death, the com- 
oion lot of man. He endured the cross, despising 
the shame, and he did this for the joy set before 
him.* " Therefore God has highly exalted him." f 
But it is useless to quote or allude to particular 
passages, which prove that Christ was a being 
distinct from, inferior to, and dependent upon 
God. You may find them on every page of 
the New Testament. The proof of this fact is, 
as I have said, imbedded and ingrained in the 
very passages brought to support a contrary propo- 
sition. 

But it is useless, for another reason, to adduce 
arguments in proof of this fact. It is conceded by 
Trinitarians explicitly and fully. The doctrine of 
the humanity of Christ is as essential a part of 
their scheme as the doctrine of his divinity. They 
allow, or, to speak more properly, they contend, 
that he was a man. But if this be true, then the 
only question that need be examined is, whether it 
be possible for Christ to have been at once God 
and man, infinite and finite, omniscient and not 
omniscient, omnipotent and not omnipotent. To 
my mind, the propositions here supposed are as if 
one were to say, that to be sure astronomers have 
correctly estimated the size of the earth ; but that 
it does, notwithstanding, fill infinite space. 

■ Hebrews xii. 2. t [Philippians ii. 9.] 



REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 75 

IV. In the next place, the doctrine is proved to 
be false, because it is evident from the Scriptures 
that none of those effects were produced which ivould 
necessarily have resulted from its first annunciation 
by Christy and its subsequent communication by his 
Apostles. The disciples of our Saviour must, at 
some period, have considered him merely as a 
man. Such he was, to all appearance, and such, 
therefore, they must have believed him to be. Be- 
fore he commenced his ministry, his relations and 
fellow-townsmen certainly regarded him as noth- 
ing more than a man. " Is not this the carpenter, 
the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses 
and Judas and Simon ? And are not his sisters 
here with us?"* At some particular period, the 
communication must have been made by our Sav- 
iour to his disciples, that he was not a mere man, 
but that he was, properly speaking, and in the 
highest sense, God himself. The doctrines with 
which we are contending, and other doctrines of a 
similar character, have so obscured and confused 
the whole of Christianity, that even its historical 
facts appear to be regarded by many scarcely in 
the light of real occurrences. But we may carry 
ourselves back in imagination to the time when 
Christ was on earth, and place ourselves in the 



* Mark vi. 3. I have retained the words " brother " and " sis- 
ters," used in the Common Version, not thinking it important, in the 
connection in which the passage is quoted, to make any change in 
this rendering ; but the relationship intended I believe to be that of 
cousins. [See the note on Matthew xih\ 55, in the author's Notes on 
the Gospels.] 

11* 



76 REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

situation of the first believers. Let us, then, reflect 
for a moment on what would be the state of our 
own feelings, if some one with whom we had as- 
sociated as a man were to declare to us that he 
was really God himself. If his character and 
works had been such as to command any atten- 
tion to such an assertion, still through what an 
agony of incredulity, and doubt, and amazement, 
and consternation must the mind pass, before it 
could settle down into a conviction of the truth of 
his declaration ! And when convinced of its truth, 
with what unspeakable astonishment should we 
be overwhelmed! With what extreme awe, and 
entire prostration of every faculty, should we ap- 
proach and contemplate such a being! if indeed 
man, in his present tenement of clay, could endure 
such intercourse with his Maker. With what a 
strong and unrelaxing grasp would the idea seize 
upon our minds ! How continually would it be 
expressed in the most forcible language, whenever 
we had occasion to speak of him ! What a deep 
and indelible coloring would it give to every 
thought and sentiment in the remotest degree 
connected with an agent so mysterious and so 
awful ! But we perceive nothing of this state of 
mind in the disciples of our Saviour; but much 
that gives evidence of a very different state ot 
mind. One may read over the first three Evange- 
lists, and it must be by a more than ordinary exer- 
cise of ingenuity, if he discover what may pass for 
an argument that either the writers, or the numer- 
ous individuals of whom they speak, regarded our 



REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 77 

Saviour as their Maker and God ; or that he ever 
assumed that character. Can we believe, that, if 
such a most extraordinary annunciation as has 
been supposed had ever actually been made by 
him, no particular record of its circumstances, and 
immediate effects, would have been preserved? — 
that the Evangelists in their accounts of their 
Master would have omitted the most remarkable 
event in his history and their own ? — and that 
three of them at least (for so much must be con- 
ceded) would have made no direct mention of far 
the most astonishing fact in relation to his char- 
acter ? Read over the accounts of the conduct 
and conversation of his disciples with their Master, 
and put it to your own feelings whether they ever 
thought that they were conversing with their God. 
Read over these accounts attentively, and ask your- 
self if this supposition do not appear to you one 
of the most incongruous that ever entered the 
human mind. Take only the facts and conver- 
sation which occurred the night before our Sav- 
iour's crucifixion, as related by St. John. Did 
Judas believe that he was betraying his God? 
Their Master washed the feet of his Apostles. 
Did the Apostles believe — but the question is too 
shocking to be stated in plain words. Did they 
then believe their Master to be God, when, sur- 
prised at his taking notice of an inquiry which 
they wished to make, but which they had not in 
fact proposed,* they thus addressed him ? " Now 

* See John xvi. 17-19. 



78 REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

we perceive that you know all things, and need 
not that any one should question you. By this 
we believe that you came from God."* Could 
they imagine that he who, throughout his conver- 
sation, spoke of himself only as the minister of 
God, and who in their presence prayed to God, 
was himself the Almighty ? Did they believe that 
it was the Maker of heaven and earth whom they 
were deserting, when they left him upon his appre- 
hension ? But there is hardly a fact or conversa- 
tion recorded in the history of our Saviour's min- 
istry which may not afford ground for such ques- 
tions as have been proposed. He who maintains 
that the first disciples of our Saviour did ever 
really believe that they were in the immediate 
presence of their God, must maintain at the same 
time that they were a class of men by themselves, 
and that all their feelings and conduct were im- 
measurably and inconceivably different from what 
those of any other human beings would have been 
under the same belief. But beside the entire ab- 
sence of that state of mind which must have been 
produced by this belief, there are other continual 
indications, direct and indirect, of their opinions 
and feelings respecting their Master, wholly ir- 
reconcilable with the supposition of its existence 
during any period of his ministry, or their own. 
Throughout the New Testament, we find nothing 
which implies that such a most extraordinary 
change of feeling ever took place in the disciples 

* John xvi. 30. 



REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 79 

of Christ as must have been produced by the com- 
munication that their Master was God himself 
upon earth. Nowhere do we find the expression 
of those irresistible and absorbing sentiments 
which must have possessed their minds under the 
conviction of this fact. With this conviction, in 
what terms, for instance, would they have spoken 
of his crucifixion, and of the circumstances with 
which it was attended? The power of language 
would have sunk under them in the attempt to 
express their feelings. Their words, when they 
approached the subject, would have been little 
more than a thrilling cry of horror and indigna- 
tion. On this subject they did indeed feel most 
deeply ; but can we think that St. Peter regarded 
his Master as God incarnate, when he thus ad- 
dressed the Jews by whom Christ had just been 
crucified? "Men of Israel, hear these words: 
Jesus of Nazareth, proved to you to be a man 
from God, by miracles and wonders and signs, 
which God did by him in the midst of you, as you 
yourselves know, him, delivered up* to you in 
conformity to the fixed will and foreknowledge of 
God, you have crucified and slain by the hands 
of the heathen. Him has God raised to life." * 

But what have been stated are not the only con- 
sequences which must necessarily have followed 
from the communication of the doctrine in ques- 
tion. It cannot be denied by those who hold the 
doctrine of the deity of Christ, that, however satis- 

Acts ii. 22 - 24. 



80 REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

factorily it may be explained, and however well it 
may be reconciled with that fundamental princi- 
ple of religion to which the Jews were so strongly 
attached, the doctrine of the Unity of God, yet it 
does, or may, at first sight, appear somewhat in- 
consistent with it. From the time of the Jew 
who is represented by Justin Martyr as disputing 
with him, about the middle of the second century, 
to the present period, it has always been regarded 
by the unbelieving Jews with abhorrence. They 
have considered the Christians as no better than 
idolaters ; as denying the first truth of religion. 
But the unbelieving Jews, in the time of the 
Apostles, opposed Christianity with the utmost 
bitterness and passion. They sought on every 
side for objections to it. There was much in its 
character to which the believing Jews could hardly 
be reconciled. The Epistles are full of statements, 
explanations, and controversy relating to questions 
having their origin in Jewish prejudices and pas- 
sions. With regard, however, to this doctrine, 
which, if it* had ever been taught, the believing 
Jews must have received with the utmost diffi- 
culty, and to which the unbelieving Jews would 
have manifested the most determined opposition, 
— with regard to this doctrine, there is no trace 
of any controversy. But if it had ever been 
taught, it must have been the main point of at- 
tack and defence between those who assailed and 
those who supported Christianity. There is noth- 
ing ever said in its explanation. But it must have 
required, far more than any other doctrine, to be 



REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 81 

explained, illustrated, and enforced ; for it appears 
not only irreconcilable with the doctrine of the 
Unity of God, but equally so with that of the 
humanity of oar Saviour; and yet both these doc- 
trines, it seems, were to be maintained in connec- 
tion with it. It must have been necessary, there- 
fore, to state it as clearly as possible, to exhibit it 
in its relations, and carefully to guard against the 
misapprehensions to which it is so liable on every 
side. Especially must care have been taken to 
prevent the gross mistakes into which the Gentile 
converts from polytheism were likely to fall. Yet, 
so far from any such clearness of statement and 
fulness of explanation, the whole language of the 
New Testament in relation to this subject is (as I 
have before said) a series of enigmas, upon the 
supposition of its truth. The doctrine, then, is 
never defended in the New Testament, though 
unquestionably it would have been the main ob- 
ject of attack, and the main difficulty in the Chris- 
tian system. It is never explained, though no 
doctrine could have been so much in need of ex- 
planation. On the contrary, upon the supposition 
of its truth, the Apostles express themselves in 
such a manner, that, if it had been their purpose 
to darken and perplex the subject, they could not 
have done it more effectually. And still more, 
this doctrine is never insisted upon as a necessary 
article of faith ; though it is now represented by 
its defenders as lying at the foundation of Chris- 
tianity. With a few exceptions, the passages in 
which it is imagined to be taught are introduced 



82 REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

incidentally, the attention of the writer being prin- 
cipally directed to some other topic ; and can be 
regarded only as accidental notices of it. It ap- 
pears, then, that while other questions of far less 
difficulty (for instance, the circumcision of the 
Gentile converts) were subjects of such doubt and 
controversy that even the authority of the Apostles 
was barely sufficient to establish the truth, this 
doctrine, so extraordinary, so obnoxious, and so 
hard to be understood, was introduced in silence, 
and received without hesitation, dislike, opposi- 
tion, or misapprehension. There are not many 
propositions, to be proved or disproved merely by 
moral evidence, which are more incredible. 

1 wish to repeat some of the ideas already sug- 
gested, in a little different connection. The doc- 
trine that Christ was God himself, appearing upon 
earth to make atonement for the sins of men, is 
represented, by those who maintain it, as a funda- 
mental doctrine of Christianity, affecting essen- 
tially the whole character of our religion. If true, 
it must indeed have affected essentially the whole 
character of the writings of the New Testament. 
A truth of such awful and tremendous interest, a 
fact " at which reason stands aghast, and faith 
herself is half confounded,"* a doctrine so adapted 



* Such is the language of Bishop Hurd in defending the doctrine. 
" In this awfully stupendous manner, at which reason stands 

AGHAST, AND FAITH HERSELF IS HALF CONFOUNDED, was the 

grace of God to man at length manifested." Sermons preached at 
Lincoln's Inn, Vol. II. p. 287. London, 1785. 



REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 83 

to seize upon and possess the imagination and 
the feelings, and at once so necessary and so 
difficult to be understood, must have appeared 
everywhere in the New Testament in the most 
prominent relief. Nobody, one would think, can 
seriously imagine it any answer to this remark, to 
say that "the Apostles doubtless expected to be 
believed when they had once plainly asserted any- 
thing"; or to suggest that their veracity might 
have been suspected, if they had made frequent 
and constant asseverations of the truth of the doc- 
trine.* What was the business of the Apostles 
but to teach and explain, to enforce and defend, 
the fundamental doctrines of Christianity ? I say 
to defend these doctrines ; for he who reads the 
Epistles with any attention, will not think that 
the mere authority of an Apostle was decisive in 
bearing down at once all error, doubt, and opposi- 
tion among believers. Even if this had been the 
case, their converts must still have been furnished 
with some answer to those objections with which 
the unbelieving Jews would have assailed a doc- 
trine so apparently incredible, and so abhorrent to 
their feelings. From the very nature of the human 
mind, if the minds of the Apostles at all resembled 
those of other men, the fact that their Master was 
the Almighty, clothed in flesh, must have appeared 
continually in their writings, in direct assertions, in 
allusions, in the strongest possible expressions of 
feeling, in a thousand different forms. The intrin- 



* See Professor Stuart's Letters, p 128. 
12 



84 REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

^ic difficulty of the doctrine in question is so great, 
and such was the ignorance of the first converts, 
a.nd their narrowness of conception, that the Apos- 
tles must have continually recurred to it, for the 
purpose of explaining it, and guarding it against 
misapprehension. As a fundamental doctrine of 
our religion, it is one which they must have .been 
constantly employed in teaching. If it were a 
doctrine of Christianity, the evidence for it would 
burst from every part of the New Testament in a 
blaze of light. Can any one think that we should 
be left to collect the proof of a fundamental article 
of our faith, and the evidence of incomparably the 
most astonishing fact that ever occurred upon our 
earth, from some expressions scattered here and 
there, the greater part of them being dropped inci- 
dentally; and that really one of the most plausi- 
ble arguments for it would be found in the omis- 
sion of the Greek article in four or five texts ? 
Can any one think that such a doctrine would 
have been so taught, that, putting out of view the 
passages above referred to, the whole remaining 
body of the New Testament, the whole history of 
our Saviour, and the prevailing and almost uni- 
form language of his Apostles, should appear, at 
least, to be thoroughly irreconcilable with it ? I 
speak, it will be remembered, merely of the propo- 
sition that Christ is God. With regard to the 
doctrine of his double nature, or the doctrine of 
the Trinity, it cannot, as T have said, be pretended 
that either of these is anywhere directly taught. 
The whole New Testament, the Gospels and the 



REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 85 

Epistles, present another aspect from what they 
must have done, if the doctrines maintained by 
Trinitarians were true. If true, it is incredible 
that they should not have appeared in the Scrip- 
tures in a form essentially different from that in 
which alone it can be pretended that they do at 
present. 

V. In treating of the argument from Scripture, 
I have thus far reasoned ad hominem; as if the 
doctrine that Christ is God, in the Trinitarian 
sense of the words, were capable of proof. But I 
must now advert to the essential character of the 
doctrine. It admits of being understood in no sense 
which is not obviously false ; and therefore it is im- 
possible that it should have been taught by Christ, 
if he were a teacher from God. 

From the nature of the Trinitarian doctrines, 
there is a liability to embarrassment in the whole 
of our reasoning from Scripture against them ; it 
being impossible to say definitely what is to be 
disproved. I have endeavored, however, to direct 
the argument in such a manner as to meet those 
errors in any form they may assume. That so 
many have held, or professed to hold them, (a phe- 
nomenon one of the most remarkable in the his- 
tory of the human mind.) is principally to be ex- 
plained by the fact, that the language in which 
they are stated, taken in its obvious sense, ex- 
presses propositions so utterly incredible. Starting 
off from its obvious meaning, the mind has re- 
course to conceptions of its own, obscure, unde- 



8b REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

fined, and unsettled; which, by now assuming 
one shape and then another, elude the grasp of 
reason. In disproving from the Scriptures +he 
proposition that Christ is God, the arguments 
that have been urged, I trust, bear upon it in any 
Trinitarian sense which it may be imagined to 
express. But what does a Trinitarian mean by 
this proposition ? Let us assume that the title 
" Son of God," applied to Christ, denotes, in some 
sense or other, proper essential divinity. But the 
Son is but one of three who constitute God. You 
may substitute after the numerals the word person, 
or distinction, or any other ; it will not affect the 
argument. God is a being ; and when you have 
named Christ or the Son, you have not, according 
to the doctrine of the Trinity, named all which 
constitutes this being. The Trinitarian asserts 
that God exists in three persons ; or, to take the 
wholly unimportant modification of the doctrine 
that some writers have attempted to introduce, 
that u God is three in a certain respect." But 
Christ, it is also affirmed, is God, the Son is God. 
Does he, then, exist in three persons? Is he three 
in a certain respect? Unquestionably not. The 
word " God" is used in two senses. In one case, 
as applied to the Supreme Being, properly, in the 
only sense which a Christian can recognize as the 
literal sense of the term ; in the other case, as ap- 
plied to Christ, though professedly in the same, 
yet clearly and necessarily in a different significa- 
tion, no one can tell what. 

Again : the Father is God. Nothing can be 



REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 87 

added to his infinity or perfections to complete 
our idea of God. Confused as men's minds have 
been by the doctrine we are opposing, there is no 
one who would not shrink from expressly asserting 
anything to be wanting to constitute the Father 
God, in the most absolute and comprehensive 
sense of the term. His conceptions must be mis- 
erably perplexed and perverted, who thinks it pos- 
sible to use language on this subject too strong or 
too unlimited. In the Father is all that we can 
conceive of as constituting God. And there is 
but one God. In the Father, therefore, exists all 
that we can conceive of as constituting the One 
and Only God. But it is contended that Christ 
also is God. What, however, can any one mean 
oy this proposition, who understands and assents 
to the perfectly intelligible and indisputable propo- 
sitions just stated ? Is the meaning, that Christ 
as well as the Father — or, if the Father be God, 
we must say, as well as God — is the One and 
Only God ? Is it that we are in error about the 
unity of God, and that Christ is another God ? 
No one will assent to either of these senses of the 
proposition. Does it imply, then, that neither the 
Father nor the Son is the One and Only God, but 
that together with another, the Holy Spirit, they 
constitute this mysterious Being? This seems at 
first view more conformed to the doctrine to be 
maintained ; but it must be observed, that he who 
adopts this sense asserts, not that Christ is God, 
but that he is not God ; and asserts at the same 
time that the Father is not God. 
12* 



88 REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT, 

Once more: if Christ be God, and if there be 
but one God, then all that is true of God is true 
of Christ, considered as God; and, on the other 
hand, all that is true of the Son is true of God. 
This being so, open the Bible, and where the name 
of God occurs, substitute that of the Son ; and 
where the name of the Son occurs, that of God. 
" The Son sent his beloved Son " ; " Father, the 
hour is come; glorify thy Son that thy Son also 
may glorify Thee." I will not, for the sake of con- 
futing any error, put a change on this most solemn 
and affecting passage. I have felt throughout the 
painful incongruity of introducing conceptions that 
ought to be accompanied with very different feel- 
ings and associations into such a discussion, and I 
am not disposed to pursue the mode just sug- 
gested of exemplifying the nature of the errors 
against which I am contending. But one who 
had never seen the New Testament before would 
need but to read a page of it to satisfy himself 
that " the Son of God " and " God " are not con- 
vertible terms, but mean something very different. 

But a Trinitarian may answer me, that the word 
" God " in the New Testament almost always de- 
notes either the Trinity or the Father; and that 
he does not suppose it to be applied to the Son in 
more than about a dozen instances. One would 
think that this state of the case must, at the first 
view of it, startle a defender of the doctrine that 
Christ is God. It is strange that one equal to the 
Father in every divine perfection should so rarely 
W denoted by that name to which he is equally 



REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 89 

entitled. But passing over this difficulty, what is 
the purport of the answer? You maintain that 
Christ is God, that the Son is God. If so, are not 
all the acts of God his acts ? Is not all that can 
be affirmed of God to be affirmed of him ? You 
hesitate, perhaps ; but there is no reason why you 
should. If there be any meaning in the New 
Testament, these questions must be answered in 
the negative. It is clear, then, that, whatever you 
may imagine, you do not use the term " God" in 
the same sense when applied to the Son, as when 
applied by you to what you call the Trinity, or to 
the First Person of the Trinity; or as when ap- 
plied either by you or us to the Supreme Being. 
But, as regards the question under discussion, 
the word admits of no variety of signification. 
The proposition, then, that Christ is God, is so 
thoroughly irreconcilable with the New Testa- 
ment, that no one could think of maintaining it 
except through a confused misapprehension of its 
meaning. 

Here, then, I close the argument irom Scrip- 
ture ; not because it is exhausted, but because it 
must be useless to pursue it further.* I will only 
add a few general remarks, founded in part on 
what has been already said concerning the pas- 

* [The reader who wishes to pursue it further is referred to Wil- 
son's u Scripture Proofs and Scriptural Illustrations of Unitarianism," 
3d ed., 1846, 870, — a work which gives a fuller view than can easily 
be found elsewhere, not only of the Scripture proofs of Unitarianism, 
but of the alleged Scripture evidence for Trinitarianism.] 



90 REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

sages adduced by Trinitarians in support of thei 
doctrines. 

In the first place, it is to be recollected that the 
passages urged to prove that Christ is God are 
alone sufficient evidence against this proposition 
A large portion of them contain language which 
cannot be used concerning God, which necessarily 
distinguishes Christ from God, and which clearly 
represents him as an inferior and dependent being. 

In the next place, I wish to recall another re- 
mark to the recollection of my readers. It is, *hat 
the doctrines maintained by Trinitarians, upon the 
supposition of their possibility and truth, must 
have been taught very differently from the manner 
in which they are supposed to be. Let any one 
recollect, that there is no pretence that any 
passage in Scripture affirms the doctrine of 
the Trinity, or that of the double nature 
of Christ ; and then let him look over the pas- 
sages brought to prove that Christ is God ; let him 
consider how they are collected from one place and 
another, how thinly they are scattered through the 
New Testament, and how incidentally they are 
introduced ; let him observe that, in a majority of 
the books of the New Testament, there is not one 
on which a wary disputant would choose to rely ; 
and then let him remember the general tenor of 
the Christian Scriptures, and the undisputed mean- 
ing of far the greater part of their language in 
relation to this subject. Having done this, I think 
he may safely say, before any critical examination 
of the meaning of those passages, that their mean' 



REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 91 

ing must have been mistaken ; that the evidence 
adduced is altogether defective in its general as- 
pect ; and that it is not by such detached passages 
as these, taken in a sense opposed to the general 
tenor of the Scriptures, that a doctrine like that in 
question can be established. We might as rea- 
sonably attempt to prove, in opposition to the 
daily witness of the heavens, that there are three 
suns instead of but one, by building an argument 
on the accounts which we have of parhelia. 

Another remark of some importance is, that, as 
Trinitarians differ much in their modes of explain- 
ing the doctrine, so are they not well agreed in 
their manner of defending it. When the doctrine 
was first introduced, it was defended, as Bishop 
Horsley tells us, " by arguments drawn from Pla- 
tonic principles."* To say nothing of these, some 
of the favorite arguments from Scripture of the 
ancient Fathers were such as no Trinitarian at the 
present day would choose to insist upon. One of 
those, for instance, which was adduced to prove 
the Trinity is found in Ecclesiastes iv. 12, "A 
threefold cord is not soon broken." Not a few of 
the Fathers, says Whitby, explain this concerning 
the Holy Trinity.f Another passage often ad- 
duced, and among others by Athanasius, as de- 
clarative of the generation of the Son from the 
substance of the Father, was discovered in the 

* Charge, IV. § 2, published in Horsley's Tracts in Controversy 
with Dr. Priestley. 

f Dissertatio de S. Scripturarum Interpretatione secundum Patrum 
Commentarios, pp. 95, 96. 



92 REASONING FBOM THE NEAV TESTAMENT. 

first verse of the 45th Psalm. The argument 
founded upon this disappears altogether in out 
common version, which renders it : " My heart is 
inditing a good matter." But the word in the 
Septuagint corresponding to matter in the cum- 
mon version is Logos ; and the Fathers under- 
stood the passage thus : My heart is throwing 
out a good Logos.* A proof that the second 
person in the Trinity became incarnate, was found 
in Proverbs ix. 1 : " Wisdom hath builded her 
house";! for the second person, or the Son, was 
regarded in the theology of the times as the Wis- 
dom of the Father. These are merely specimens 
taken from many of a similar character, a number 
more of which may be found in the work of Whit- 
by just referred to in the margin. Since the first 
introduction of the doctrine, the mode of its de- 
fence has been continually changing. As more 
just notions respecting the criticism and interpre- 
tation of the Scriptures have slowly made their 
way, one passage after another has been dropped 
from the Trinitarian roll. Some which are re- 
tained by one expositor are given up by another. 
Even two centuries ago, Calvin threw away or 
depreciated the value of many texts, which most 
Trinitarians would think hardly to be spared. J 



* Dissertatio de S. Scripturarum Interpretatione secundum Patrum 
Commentaries, p. 75. 

t Ibid., p. 92. 

\ [Thus, for example, in his note on John x. 30, " I and my Fathe 
are one," Calvin says : " The ancients improperly used this passage 
to prove that Christ is of the same substance with the Father. Fot 



REASONING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 93 

There are very few of any importance in the 
controversy, the Orthodox exposition of which 
has not been abandoned by some one or more of 
the principal Trinitarian critics among Protestants.* 
Among Catholics, there are many by whom it is 
rather affirmed than conceded, that the doctrine 
of the Trinity is not to be proved from the Scrip- 
tures, but rests for its support upon the tradition 
of the Church. 

Whence, then, was the doctrine of the Trinity 
derived? The answer to this question is impor- 
tant. Reason and Scripture have borne their testi- 
mony against the doctrine ; and I am now about 
to call another witness, Ecclesiastical History. 

he is not speaking of a unity of substance, but of his agreement 
(consensu) with the Father ; implying that whatever he does will bf 
confirmed by the Fathers power." — Opp. VI. P. II. 103. 

It may be observed, that the earlier Christian Fathers who treat 
of this passage do not explain it in the manner which is censured by 
Calvin. They understood the word M one," which is in the neuter 
gender in the original, as denoting, not a unity of nature, but of will 
and affection, a moral unity ; referring for this use of language to 
other passages of Scripture, as John xvii. 11, 21-23; Acts iv. 32 ; 
1 Cor. hi. 8, &c. So Tertullian, Advers. Praxeam, c. 22 ; Novatian, 
De Trinitate. c. 27 ; Origen, Cont. Celsum, Lib. VIII. c. 12. Opp. I. 
750. 751 ; Coram, in Joannem, Tom. xiii. c. 36, Opp. IV. 245 ; and 
elsewhere. See also the citations from Hippolytus, Alexander of 
Alexandria, and Eusebius, in Jackson's notes on Xovatian. pp. 36S, 
369. The passage is understood in a similar manner by Erasmus, 
Grotius, Bp. Pearce, Abp. Xewcome. Bp. Middleton. Knapp. Rosen- 
muller, Kuinoel, Sruart, Schleusner, TVahl. and Robinson.] 

* [For abundant proof of this fact, see Wilson's " Concessions cf 
Trinitarians " Manchester, Eng., and Boston, U. S., 1545. SvoJ 



SECTION IV. 

ON THE ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

We can trace the history of this doctrine, and dis- 
cover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but 
in the Platonic philosophy ; * which was the preva- 
lent philosophy during the first ages after the intro- 
duction of Christianity, and of which all the more 
eminent Christian writers, the Fathers as they are 
called, were, in a greater or less degree, disciples. 
They, as others have often done, blended their 
philosophy and their religion into one complex 
and heterogeneous system ; and taught the doc- 
trines of the former as those of the latter. In this 
manner, they introduced errors into the popular 
faith. " It is an old complaint of learned men," 
says Mosheim, "that the Fathers, or teachers of 
the ancient church, were too much inclined to the 
philosophy of Plato, and rashly confounded what 
was taught by that philosopher with the doctrines 
of Christ, our Saviour; in consequence of which, 
the religion of Heaven was greatly corrupted, and 

* I state the proposition in this general form, in which the author- 
ities to be adduced directly apply to it. But it is to be observed, that 
the doctrine of the personality of the Logos, and of his divinity, in an 
inferior sense of that term, which was the germ of the Trinity, was 
immediately derived from Philo, the Jewish Plato as he has been 
called, which fact I shall hereafter have occasion to advert to. 



OR13IN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 95 

the truth much obscured." * This passage is from 
the Dissertation of Mosheim, Concerning- the In- 
jury done to the Church by the Later Platonists. 
In the same Dissertation, after stating some of the 
obstructions thrown in the way of Christianity by 
those of the later Platonists who were its enemies, 
he proceeds to say : u But these evils were only 
external, and although they were injurious to our 
most holy religion, and delayed its progress, yet 
they did not corrupt its very nature, and disease, 
if I may so speak, its vitals. More fatal distempers 
afflicted Christianity, after this philosophy had en- 
tered the very limits of the sacred city, and had 
built a habitation for herself in the minds of those 
to whom the business of instruction was com- 
mitted. There is nothing, the most sacred in our 
faith, which from that time was not profaned, and 
did not lose a great part of its original and natural 
form." f " Few of the learned," he adds in an- 
other place, " are so unacquainted with ecclesi- 
astical history, as to be ignorant what a great 
number of errors, and most preposterous opinions, 
flowed in from this impure source." J Among the 
false doctrines thus introduced from the Platonic 
philosophy is to be reckoned, pre-eminently, that 
of the Trinity. Gibbon says, with a sneer, that 
"the Athenian sage [Plato] marvellously antici- 
pated one of the most surprising discoveries of the 

* Mosheim, De turbata per recentiores Platonicos Ecclesia Com* 
mentatio, § vi. 
t Ibid., § xxxiii. 
t Ibid., § xlviii. 

IS 



96 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

Christian revelation." * In making this assertion, 
Gibbon adopted a popular error, for which there ia 
no foundation. Nothing resembling the doctrine 
of the Trinity is to be found in the writings ot 
Plato himself, f But there is no question that, in 
different forms, it was a favorite doctrine of the 
later Platonists, equally of those who were not 
Christians as of those who were. Both the one 
and the other class expressed the doctrine in simi- 
lar terms, explained it in a similar manner, and 
defended it, as far as the nature of the case al- 
lowed, by similar arguments ; and both appealed 
in its support to the authority of Plato. Clement 
of Alexandria, one of the earliest of the Trinitarian 
and Platonizing Fathers, (he flourished about the 
commencement of the third century,) endeavors to 
show, that the doctrine was taught by that philoso- 
pher. He quotes a passage from one of the epis- 
tles ascribed to him, J in which mention is made of 
a second and third principle, beside the " King of 
all things." In this passage, he observes, he M can 

* f Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Ch. xxi.] 
t Mosheim says, ironically : '' Certainly the three famous hypos- 
tases of the later Platonists may be discovered Jn the Timseus of 
Plato, as easily and readily as the three principles of the chemists, 
Bait, sulphur, and mercury." " Certe tres illas celeberrimas hyposta- 
ses Platonicorum in Timaeo Platonis ostendere, aeque facile et promp- 
tum est, atque tria chymicorum principia, sal, sulphur, et mercurium 
ex hoc Dialogo eruere." (See his Notes to his Latin Translation of 
Cudworth's Intellectual System, 2d ed., Tom. I. p. 901.) The doc- 
trine of the Trinity is as little to be discovered in any other genuine 
writing of Plato as in the Timaeus. 

t The second epistle to Dionysius ; which, with all the other epis* 
ties ascribed to Plato, is now generally regarded as spurious. 



OllIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 97 

understand nothing to be meant but the Sacred 
Trinity ; the third principle being the Holy Spirit, 
and the second principle being the Son, by whom 
all things were created according to the will of the 
Father." * A similar interpretation of the passage 
is referred to by Eusebius ; f and in the oration 
which he ascribes to Constantine, as addressed 
u To the Assembly of Saints," Plato is eulogized 
as teaching, conformably to the truth, that " there 
is a First God, the Father, and a Second God, the 
Logos or Son."J Augustine tells us in his Con- 
fessions, that he found the true doctrine concern- 
ing the Logos in a Latin translation of some Pla- 
tonic writings, which the providence of God had 
thrown in his way.§ Speaking of those ancient 
philosophers who were particularly admired by the 
later Platonists, he says: "If these men could re- 
vive, and live over again their lives with us, with 
the change of a few words and sentences they 
would become Christians, as very many Plato- 
nists of our own time have done." || Theodoret 
gives the following account of the Platonic Trin- 
ity as compared with the Christian: " Plotinus 
and Numenius, explaining the opinion of Plato, 
represent him as teaching the existence of three 
principles which are beyond time and eternal, The 

* Stromat. Lib. V. c. 14. p. 710, ed. Potter. 

t Praeparatio Evangelica, Lib. XL c. 20. 

t Cap. 9. 

§ " Tu, Domine procurasti mihi quosdam Plato- 

nicorum libros," &c. [Confess. Lib. VII. cc. 8, 9.] Opp. I. col. 12& 
Basil. 1556. 

|| Lib. de Vera Religione. [Cap 4, al. 7. J Opp. I. col. 704 



#8 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 

Good, Intellect, and the Soul of the World. He 
gives the name of The Good to the being whom 
we call Father ; of Intellect, to him whom we 
name Son and Logos ; and the power which ani- 
mates and gives life to all things, which the Di- 
vine Word names Holy Spirit, he calls Soul. But 
these doctrines, as 1 have said, have been stolen 
r rom the philosophy and theology of the He- 
brews." * Basnage had good reason for observ- 
ing, that the Fathers almost made Plato to have 
been a Christian, before the introduction of Chris- 
tianity. Immediately after this remark, Basnage 
quotes a writer of the fifth century, who expresses 
with honest zeal his admiration at the supposed 
fact, that the Athenian sage should have so mar- 
vellously anticipated the most mysterious doctrines 
of revelation.f 

I will produce a few passages from modern 
Trinitarian writers, to show the near resem- 
blance between the Christian and Platonic Trin- 
ity. The very learned Cudworth, in his great 
w T ork on the Intellectual System, has brought 
together all that antiquity could furnish to illus- 
trate the doctrine. He institutes a long and mi- 
nute comparison between the forms in which it was 
held by the Heathen Platonists, and that in which it 
was held by the Christian Fathers. Toward the con- 
clusion of this, we find the following passages :—- 

" Thus have we given a true and fall account^ 
how, according to Athanasius, the three divine 

* Graec. Affect. Curat. Serm. II. Opp. IV. 500, ed. Sirmond. 
t Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, Liv. IV. ch. 4. § 20. 



ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 99 

hypostases, though not monoousious, but homoou- 
sious only, are really but one God or Divinity. 
In all which doctrine of his, there is nothing but 
what a true and genuine Platonist would readily 
subscribe to." * 

" As the Platonic Pagans after Christianity did 
approve of the Christian doctrine concerning the 
Logos, as that which was exactly agreeable with 
their own ; so did the generality of the Christian 
Fathers, before and after the Nicene Council, rep 
resent the genuine Platonic Trinity as really the 
«ame thing with the Christian, or as approaching 
so near to it, that they differed chiefly in circum- 
stances, or the manner of expression." f 

In proof of this, Cudworth produces many pas- 
sages similar to those which I have quoted from 
the Fathers. Athanasius, he observes, " sends the 
Arians to school to the Platonists." £ 

Basnage was not disposed to allow such a re- 
semblance between the Christian and Platonic 
Trinity as that which Cudworth maintains, and 
has written expressly in refutation of the latter. 
It is not necessary to enter into this controversy. 
The sentence with which he concludes his re- 

* Ch. IV. § 36. p. 620. [Vol. II. p. 15, Andover edit,] 

t Page 621. [al. II. 17.] 

| Page 623. [al. II. 19, 20.] The study of Cudworth is strongly 
recommended by Bishop Horsley for the information which his work 
contains respecting the tenets of the Platonists. See his Charge, 
before quoted, V. § 5. I would recommend it also, with particular 
reference to the subject before us ; for I know no other work from 
which so much information can be derived concerning the origin of 
the Christian doctrine of the Trinity 
13* 



100 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, 

marks on the subject, is enough for our purpose 
" Christianity, in its triumph, has often reflected 
honor on the Platonists; and as the Christians 
took some pride in finding the Trinity taught 
by a philosopher, so the Platonists were proud in 
their turn to see the Christians adopt their prin- 
ciples." * 

I quote the authorities of learned Trinitarians, 
rather than adduce the facts on which they are 
founded, because the facts could not be satisfac- 
torily stated and explained in a small compass. 
It is to be observed, that Trinitarians, in admit- 
ting the influence of the Platonic doctrine upon the 
faith of the early Christians, of course d» not re- 
gard the Platonic as the original source of the 
Orthodox doctrine, but many of them represent 
it as having occasioned errors and heresies, and 
particularly the Arian heresy. Such was the opin- 
ion of Petavius, who in his Theologica Dogmata,! 
after giving an account of the Platonic notions 
concerning the Trinity, thus remarks. 

" I will now proceed to consider the subject on 
account of which I have entered into so full an 
investigation of the opinions of the Platonists 
concerning the Trinity; namely, in what manner 
this doctrine was conceived of by some of the 
ancients, and how the fiction of Plato concerning 
the Trinity was gradually introduced into Chris- 
tianity by those of the Platonists who had become 
converts to our religion, or by others who had been 

* Histcire des Juifs, Liv. IV. ch. 3, 4. 
t De Trmitate, Lib I. c. 3. § 1. 



ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 101 

in any way indoctrinated in the Platonic philoso- 
phy. They are to be separated into two classes. 
One consists of such as, properly speaking, were 
unworthy the name of Christians, being heretics. 
The other, of those who were true Christians, Cath- 
olics, and saints ; but who, through the circum- 
stances of their age, the mystery not yet being 
properly understood, threw out dangerous propo- 
sitions concerning it." 

The very Orthodox Gale, in his Court of the 
Gentiles, says : " The learned Christians, Clemens 
Alexandrinus, O rig-en, &c, made use of the Py- 
thagorean and Platonic philosophy, which was at 
this time wholly in request, as a medium to illus- 
trate and prove the great mysteries of faith, touch- 
ing the Divine \oyo$, word, mentioned John i. 1, 
hoping by such symbolisings, and claiming kindred 
with these philosophic notions and traditions (origi- 
nally Jewish) touching the Platonic \6yos, z/ou?, and 
rpias, [the Platonic trinity,] they might gain very 
much credit and interest amongst these Platonic 
Sophistes." * 

Beausobre, in his History of Manichaeism, ad- 
verts to this subject. His opinion concerning the 
resemblance of the Platonic and Christian Trinity 
appears in the following passage. 

" Such, according to Chalcidius,f was the Pla- 
tonic Trinity. It has been justly regarded as de- 
fective. 1. It speaks of a first, a second, and a 

* Part III. B. II. c. 1. § 9. 

t Chalcidius was a Platonic philosopher, who lived before the close 
r<r the fourth century. 



102 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

third God; expressions which Christianity has 
banished. Still, as appears from what I have 
said, Plato really acknowledged but a single God, 
because he admitted, properly speaking, but a sin- 
gle First Cause, and a single Monarch. 2. This 
theology is still further censured for the division 
of the Divine Persons, who are not only distin- 
guished, but separated. The objection is we]l 
grounded. But this error may be pardoned in a 
philosopher; since it is excused in a great number 
of Christian writers, who have had the lights of 
the Gospel. 3. In the last place, fault is found 
with this theology on account of the inequality ol 
the Persons. There is a supreme God, to whom 
the two others are subject. There was the same 
defect in the theology of the Manichaeans. They 
believed the consubstantiality of the Persons, but 
they did not believe their equality. The Son w T as 
below the Father, and the Holy Spirit below the 
Father and Son. But if we go back to the time 
when Manichaeus lived [about the middle of the 
third century], we shall be obliged to pardon an 

error which was then very general Huet, 

w T ho acknowledges that Origen has everywhere 
taught that the Son is inferior to the Father, ex- 
cuses him on the ground that this was the com- 
mon doctrine of those writers who preceded the 
Council of Nice. And Petavius not only does not 
deny it, but proves it at length in his First Book 
on the Trinity."* 

* Histoire du Manicheisme, Tom. I pp 560, 561 



ORIGIN OF THE LOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 103 

There has been no more noted defender of the 
doctrine in modern times than Bishop Horsley. 
The following is a quotation from his Letters to 
Dr. Priestley. 

u I am very sensible that the Platonizers of the 
second century were the Orthodox of that age. 1 
have not denied this. On the contrary, I have en- 
deavored to show that their Platonism brings no 
imputation upon their Orthodoxy. The advocates 
of the Catholic faith in modern times have been 
too apt to take alarm at the charge of Platonism. 
I rejoice and glory in the opprobrium. I not only 
confess, but I maintain, not a perfect agreement, 
but such a similitude as speaks a common origin, 
and affords an argument in confirmation of the 
Catholic doctrine [of the Trinity], from its con- 
formity to the most ancient and universal tradi- 
tions." * 

In another place he says : " It must be acknowl- 
edged, that the first converts from the Platonic 
school took advantage of the resemblance between 
the Evangelic and Platonic doctrine on the subject 
of the Godhead, to apply the principles of their 
old philosophy to the explication and confirmation 
of the articles of their faith. They defended it by 
arguments drawn from Platonic principles ; they 
even propounded it in Platonic language." f 

The celebrated Bentley, upon taking his degree 
of Doctor of Divinity in 1696 at Cambridge, de- 
fended " the identity of the Christian and Platonic 

• Letters to Dr. Priestley. Letter 13. t Charge, IV. § 2. 



104 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

Trinity," together with " the Mosaic account of 
the Creation and the Deluge," and " the proof 
of divine authority by the miracles recorded in 
Scripture." Nor does it appear that the first-men- 
tioned position was regarded with surprise or oblo- 
quy, any more than the last two.* 

I might produce more authorities in support ol 
the facts which have been stated. But I conceive 
it to be unnecessary. The fair inference from 
these facts every reader is able to draw for him- 
self. The doctrine of the Trinity is not a doctrine 
of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the 
school of the later Platonists, introduced into our 
religion by the Fathers, who were admirers and 
disciples of the philosophy taught in this school. 
The want of all mention of it in the Scriptures is 
abundantly compensated by the ample space which 
it occupies in the writings of the heathen Plato- 
nists, and of the Platonizing Fathers. 

But what has been stated is not the only evi- 
dence which Ecclesiastical History affords against 
this doctrine. The conclusion to which we have 
just arrived is confirmed by other facts. But these, 
nowever important, I will here but barely mention. 
They are the facts of its gradual introduction ; of 
Us slow growth to its present form ; of the strong 
opposition which it encountered ; and of its tardy 
reception among the great body of common Chris- 
tians.^ 

* See Monk's Life of Bentlev, p. 57. 

f On these subjects, see Dr. Priestley's History of Early Opinions 
concerning Jesus Christ. [Compare Mr. Norton's "Account of the 



ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 105 

Cudworth, after remarking "that not a few of 
those ancient Fathers, who were therefore reputed 
Orthodox because they zealously opposed Arian- 
ism," namely, Gregory Nyssen, Cyril of Alexan- 
dria, and others, entertained the opinion that the 
three persons in the Trinity were three distinct 
individuals, " like three individual men, Thomas, 
Peter, and John," — the divine nature being com- 
mon to the former as the human nature is to the 
latter, — observes that " some would think that the 
ancient and genuine Platonic Trinity, taken with 
all its faults, is to be preferred before this Trinity." 
He then says : " But as this Trinity came after- 
wards to be decried for tritheistic, so in the room 
thereof started there up that other Trinity of per- 
sons numerically the same, or having all one and 
the same singular existent essence, — a doctrine 
which seemeth not to have been owned by any 
public authority in the Christian Church, save that 
of the Lateran Council only." * 

This is the present Orthodox form of the doc- 
trine of the Trinity. Cudworth refers to the 
fourth general Lateran Council, held in 1215, 
under Pope Innocent the Third. The same Coun- 
cil which, in the depth of the Dark Ages, es- 
tablished the modern doctrine of the Trinity, 
established, likewise, that of Transubstantiation ; 



Controversy between Dr. Priestley, Dr. Horsley, and others," in the 
General Repository and Review (Cambridge, 1812, 1813), Vols. 
L-III.l 

* Intellectual System, Ch. IV. §36. pp 602-604. [T. 791-793, 
Andover edit.l 



106 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

enforced with the utmost rigor the persecution of 
heretics, whom it ordered to be sought out and 
exterminated ; and prepared the way for the tri- 
bunals of the Inquisition, which were shortly after 
established.* 

* See Fleury, Histoire Ecclesiastique, An. 1215 



SECTION V. 

CONCERN ING THE HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OP THR 
HYPOSTATIC UNION. 

It may throw some further light upon the hu- 
man origin of the doctrine of the Trinity, briefly to 
notice the history of that of the Hypostatic Union. 

By Trinitarians it is represented as a doctrine of 
fundamental importance, that Christ was at once 
God and man, the two natures being so united as 
to constitute but one person. It is this, indeed, 
which is supposed to give its chief interest to the 
doctrine of the Trinity ; since only he who was at 
once God and man could, it is said, have made for 
men that infinite atonement which the justice bf 
God, or rather the justice of the Father, required. 
But in the minds of most of those who profess the 
doctrine, it exists, I conceive, merely as a form of 
words, not significant of any conceptions, however 
dim or incongruous. They have not even formed 
an imagination, possible or impossible, of what is 
meant by the Hypostatic Union. It is a remark- 
able fact, that while new attempts to explain the 
doctrine of the Trinity, new hypotheses and illus- 
trations of it, have been abundant, this other doc- 
trine has, in modern times, been generally left in the 
nakedness of its verbal statement; that "the God- 
u 



108 HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE 

head and manhood being joined together in one 
person never to be divided, there is one Christ, 
very God and very man, who truly suffered, was 
crucified, dead, and buried." 

It was in the fifth century that the doctrine 
assumed its present form. The Fathers of the 
second century believed in the incarnation of the 
Logos, or the Son of God ; they believed that he 
became a man, that is, they believed that he mani- 
fested himself in a human body ; but their concep- 
tions concerning the particular nature of the rela- 
tion between the divinity and humanity of Christ 
were obscure and unsettled. Their general no 
tions respecting the Incarnation may more easily 
be ascertained, though they have not till of late 
been made the subject of much critical inquiry. 

In Justin Martyr there is, I think, but one pas- 
sage concerning the mode and results of the con- 
nection between the two natures in Christ, which 
has been regarded as of much importance ; and 
that has been differently explained, and, as the text 
now stands, is, I believe, unintelligible.* What, 

* Justin (Apologia Sec. p. 123, ed. Thirlb.) [c. 10, p. 48, C. ed. 
Morel.] is speaking of the superiority of Christ to all other lawgivers. 
These, he admits, possessed a portion of the Logos, that is, were en- 
lightened, in a certain degree, by the Wisdom of God ; but Christ was 
the Logos himself; therefore the doctrines he taught and Christians 
believed (to. fjpLtTepa) were far higher than all which had been taught 
before. The passage in question, by the insertion of a comma and a 
letter, may receive a certain meaning, but one which throws Vttle 
light on the subject. — MeyuXciorepa .... fyalverai to. l^/ie'repc* .*<» 



OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION. 109 

however, is more important, it appears from the 
general tenor of his language on this subject, 
that Justin regarded the Logos alone as, properly 
speaking, Christ himself. His notions of the in- 
carnation of the Logos were essentially those which 
we usually connect with that word as denoting 
the assumption of a body by a spiritual being, 
and not as implying any union or combination 
of a superior nature with the human. Though 
he uses the term " man " in* reference to the ani- 
mate body of Christ, yet the real agent and sufferer 
whom he seems always to have had in view is the 
Logos ; for the conceptions of Justin concerning 
the Logos were not such as to exclude the idea of 
his suffering. Speaking of the agony of Christ in 
the garden of Gethsemane, he says it was recorded, 
" that we might know that it was the will of the 
Father that his Son should truly thus suffer for our 
sakes ; and that we might not say that he being 
the Son of God had no feeling of what was done 
to him or what befell him." * In later times, in- 
deed, language was used, and its use has continued 
to our own day, — language not utterly intolerable 
only because it is utterly without meaning, — in 

tovto [,] XoyiKov to [f. t6v\ oXov tov (f>avevra SY rjfjias Xpiarov ye- 
yovkvai, kcli (Tafia, Kal \6yov, kcu tyvx*} v ' tt ^ appears that our doc- 
trines are far superior, for this reason, that the whole Christ who 
appeared for us, body, Logos, and animal soul, pertained to the 
Logos (koyiKov yeyovtvai). 

Perhaps the use of such language may be illustrated bj a passage 
of Origen (Cont. Cels. Lib. III. § 41, Opp. I. 474), which will bo 
quoted hereafter. See also Lib. II. § 51. Opp. I. 426. 

* Dial, cum Tryph. pp. 361, 362. [al. c. 103, p. 331, D ] 



110 HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE 

which God is spoken of as having suffered and 
been crucified. But Justin, and other early Fa* 
thers, when they spoke of the sufferings of the 
Logos, meant what they said. This is evident, 
not merely from passages as explicit as that just 
quoted, but from the manner in which they re- 
garded the doctrine of those who denied the per- 
sonality of the Logos, and maintained that the 
divinity in Christ was the divinity of the Father. 
Such opinions, it was affirmed, necessarily led to 
the belief that the Father himself had suffered. 
Those who held them were charged with this be- 
lief, and hence denominated Patripassians. The 
charge, without doubt, was unjust ; but it shows 
that the doctrine of those who made it w T as, that 
the Logos, the divine nature of the Son, had suf- 
fered in Christ. If they had not held this belief 
concerning the Logos, or Son, there would have 
been no pretence for charging their opponents with 
holding a corresponding belief concerning the Fa- 
ther ; especially as their opponents maintained, 
what they themselves did not maintain, that Christ 
w r as properly and in all respects a man ; and this 
being so, had no occasion to turn their thoughts to 
any other sufferer than the man Christ. 

The opinions of Irenseus were similar to those 
of Justin. He regarded the Logos as supplying in 
Christ the place of the intelligent soul or mind of 
man. I use these expressions, because Irenaeus, in 
common with other ancient philosophers, distin- 
guished between the mind, intellect, or spirit, and 



OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION. 11^ 

the principle of life, or animal soul, which was 
also considered as the seat of the passions. The 
vagueness with which the names were used, de- 
noting these two principles in man, is one cause of 
obscurity in the present inquiry. But Irenaeus, it 
appears, conceived that the Logos in becoming 
incarnate assumed only a body and an animal 
soul, the place of the human intellect being sup- 
plied by the Logos himself.* In holding this 
doctrine, he, though the champion of the church 
against the heretics of his own day, was himself 
a precursor both of the Arian and the Apollinarian 



* See the passages quoted by MCinscher, in his Handbuch der 
christlichen Dogmengeschiehte. Band II. § 181. Munscher, how- 
ever, is incorrect in representing Irenaeus as having supposed the 
Logos to have assumed a human body only. According to Irenaeus, 
an animal soul (anima, faxf}) was also conjoined with the Logos. In 
opposition to the Gnostics, who denied that Christ had a proper hu- 
man body, he says (Lib. III. c. 22. $ 2): "If the Son of God had 

received nothing from Mary, he would not have said, My soul 

(r) "^rvxr, /xou) is exceedingly sorrowful." Dr. Priestley, on the other 
hand, contends (Hist, of Early Opinions, Vol. II. p. 203, seqq.) that, 
according to Irenaeus, Christ had a proper human soul. His error 
arises from his not adverting to the distinction above mentioned, be- 
tween the intellect or spirit and the animal soul. This distinction 
is stated and illustrated by Irenaeus, Lib V. c. 6. § 1. The latter 
passage is to be compared with that quoted by Dr. Priestley, of 
which his rendering is erroneous. 

It may be observed that the mistake of Munscher is followed by 
Neander (Geschichte der christ. Relig. u. Kirche, Band I. s. 1063), 
who says, speaking of the early opinions concerning Christ: "The 
assumption of the human nature was conceived of merely as the as- 
sumption of a human body, as we find it clearly expressed by Ire- 
naeus." [This statement of Neander's was modified in the second 
edition of this part of his work, published in 1843. See TorreyV 
Translation, I. 634.] 

14* 



112 HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE 

heresies concerning the Incarnation ; for the error 
of both consisted in regarding the Logos as hav- 
ing supplied the place of the human intellect in 
Christ, 

In opposition to those Gnostics who maintained 
that the ^Eon, as they denominated him, or the 
divine being, Christ, at the time of the crucifixion, 
departed from the man, Jesus, and left him to suf- 
fer alone, Irenaeus often speaks of the proper suffer- 
ings of the Logos.* 

Of the opinions of Clement of Alexandria con- 
cerning the mode of connection between the two 
natures, nothing, I think, can be affirmed defiijptely 
and with assurance.f Of the passages adduced 



* See many passages to this effect collected by Jackson in his An- 
notations to Novatian, pp. 357, 358. On this subject, and on the 
opinions of the earlier Fathers generally respecting the Incarnation, 
see also Whiston's Primitive Christianity, Yol. IV. pp. 272-321. 

Dr. Priestley (History of Early Opinions, Yol. II. pp. 205, 215, 
216) produces a single passage from Irenaeus (Lib. III. c. 19. § 3), on 
which he relies for proof that Irenaeus did not conceive of the Logos 
as suffering. The Greek of this passage is quoted by Dr. Priestley. 
It is preserved by Theodoret, who may probably have somewhat al- 
tered the expressions to conform them to his own opinions, as they 
do not agree with those of the old Latin version, which is here the 
better authority. Nor does Dr. Priestley's translation correspond 
even with the Greek. He renders : " The Logos being quiescent in 
his temptation, crucifixion, and death'* ; thus separating the Logos 
from Christ, and representing Christ as a distinct person by the use 
of the personal pronoun, his. The Greek is. y](tvx^C oi;tos ^ v t °v 
Aoyov iv tco ircipa^aOai kcli aravpovcrOaL kcll airo6vr)(TK€iv \ which 
should be rendered : " The Logos being quiescent (i e. suspending 
his powers) when tempted, when crucified, and at death " 

t See the quotations from and references to him in Mdnscher 
Ibid., § 183. 



OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION. 113 

from him, one of the principal has I think, no re- 
lation to the subject; but refers throughout to the 
indwelling of the Logos in all true believers. It 
is, however, so remarkable, as showing how loosely 
language was used, on which, in the writings of 
the earlier Fathers, too much stress has often been 
laid, that it deserves quotation. " That man," he 
says, " with whom the Logos abides, does not as- 
sume various appearances, but preserves the form 
of the Logos ; he is made like to God ; he is beau- 
tiful, not adorned with factitious beauty, but being 
essential beauty ; for such God is. That man be- 
comes a god, because God so wills it. It has been 
well said by Heraclitus, c Men are gods and the 
gods are men ' ; for the Logos himself, a conspicu- 
ous mystery, is God in man, and man "becomes a 
god ; the Mediator accomplishing the will of the 
Father ; for the Mediator is the Logos common 
to both ; being the Son of God and the Saviour 
of men, being his minister and our instructor." * 

* The following is the original » f the passage. See Potter's edi- 
tion of Clement, p. 251. I have altered his pointing, as the sense 
seems to me to require, and in one instance, in the last sentence, 
Beos is printed with a small initial letter where he has used a capital. 

l O de av0p(D7ros eKeli/oy, op ctvvolkos 6 Adyos, ov 7rotKiXXerat, ov 
irXdrreraL ■ jiopcprjv e^et tt\v tov Adyov • i^opoiovTai rco Geco • koKos 
eoTiv, ov KaWcoTTL^eraL • KaWds io~ri to akrjOivdv, kcu yap 6 Geos 
iarlv. Qeos Se iKelvos 6 ai>6po*7ros yiverai, on fioukerai 6 Qeds- 
Qpdcos apa €L7T€V 'HpaKXeiros, "AvdpcoTTOi, deoi • Bcoi, av0p<O7TOL. 
Adyos yap dvros, pvcrTj]piov ip^avis^ Qeos iv dv0pd)7r(O, Ka\ 6 
ai/BpcoTTQ?, Beds ' Ka\ to BeXripa tov UaTpbs 6 peaiTTjS eKTeXel • 
fiecriTrjs yap 6 Adyos, 6 kolvos dp(j)OLV, Qeov p.ev vlds, crcor^p $€ 
dvdpdi7rcoVj Ka\ tov plv Sidicovos, fjpcov Se Traidayooyds. Pa3dag)g. 
Lib. III. c. 1. 



114 HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE 

Archbishop Potter, in the notes to his edition of 
Clement, observes, " that Clement often says, that 
men through piety and virtue are not only assimi- 
lated to God, but as it were transformed into the 
divine nature, and become gods."* 

But the opinions of Clement respecting the In- 
carnation appear perhaps with sufficient distinct- 
ness in what he says of the body of Christ. Ac- 
cording to him, " It would be ridiculous to sup- 
pose that the body of our Saviour required the 
aliments necessary to others for his support. He 
took food not for the sake of his body, which vvas 
sustained by a holy power, but that he might not 
give occasion to those with whom he was conver- 
sant to form a wrong opinion concerning him; — 
as, in fact, some [the Docetse] afterward supposed, 
that he had been manifested with only the appear- 
ance of a body. But he was wholly impassible; 
liable to be affected by no motions either of pleas- 
are or pain." f It would seem that Clement here 
excludes all conception even of an animal soul in 
Christ ; and that he regarded the appearance of the 
Logos on earth as merely the manifestation of him 
to the senses of men in a body, answering in form 
and substance to a human body, but not subject 
to the same necessities and accidents. 



* See note 11, p. 71, and note 7, p. 88. In the latter he produces 
remarkable examples of this use of language. See also numerous 
examples from other early Christian writers, in Sandii Interpreta 
tiones Paradoxal, p. 227, seqq [and Winston's Primitive Christian 
:ty, Vol. IV. p. 100, seqq] 

t Stromat. VI. § 9. p. 775. 



OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION. 



115 



The language of Tertullian is vacillating and 
self-contradictory. His conceptions on the whole 
subject of the Logos were unsteady ; and no form 
of words had as yet been settled which might 
serve as a guide to one without ideas of his own. 
He rejected the philosophical distinction of his 
day between the intellect (mens, animus), and the 
animal soul (anima), and maintained, in conformity 
with our modern belief, the proper unity of the 
soul (ani?na), of which he regarded the intellect as 
a part. But this soul, in common with many of 
the ancient philosophers, he conceived of as cor- 
poreal. He regarded it as diffused through the 
body, possessing its shape, and constituting its 
principle of life.* A living body he probably 
considered as essentially united with a soul ; and 
in believing the Logos to have assumed a liv- 
ing body, he represents him as having assumed 
also a human soul. The soul being, in his view, 
corporeal as well as the body, the conception or 
the imagination thus became more easy to be 
apprehended. But that, in assigning a human soul 
to Christ, he assigned to him likewise a human 
intellect, is not, I think, to be proved. This part 
of the soul, he. may have thought was supplied 
by the Logos ; and there is much in his writings 
which favors the supposition. It appears, I think, 
to have been his prevalent conception, in common 
with the othei Fathers of his time, that the Logos 
alone was the proper agent in Christ. I will pro- 

* See his treatise De Animd. 



116 HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE 

duce only two passages, to which there are many 
more or less analogous. In arguing against the 
Gnostics, who denied that Christ had a fleshly 
body, he compares the assumption of such a 
body by Christ to the appearances of angels re- 
lated in the Old Testament. iC You have read, 
and believed," he says, w that the angels of the 
Creator were sometimes changed into the like- 
ness of men, and bore about so true a body, that 
Abraham washed their feet, and Lot was drawn 
away from Sodom by their hands ; an angel also 
wrestled with a man, the whole weight of whose 
body was required to throw him down and detain 
him. But that power which you concede to the 
angels, who may assume a human body and yet 
remain angels, do you take away from a divine 
being more powerful than they? (hoc tu potenti- 
ori deo aufers?) As if Christ could not continue a 
divine being (deus) after having put on human- 
ity." * He often speaks, though, I think, not with 
clear or consistent conceptions, of the sufferings of 
the Logos. He represents him as the agent in all 
those operations referred to God in the Old Testa- 
ment, which the Gnostics regarded as unworthy of 
the Supreme Being. They are ignorant, he says, 
that, though not suitable to the Father, they were 
suitable to the Son ; and proceeds to express con- 
ceptions very different from those which, as we 
have seen, were entertained by Clement of Alex- 
andria. u They are ignorant that those things 

* De Carne Chris ti, c. 3. 



OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION. 117 

were suitable to the Son, who was about to sub- 
mit to the accidents of humanity, thirst, and hun- 
ger, and tears, to be born, and even to die." * 

Thus far, the loose general notion of most of 
those who speculated on the subject seems to 
have been, that the incarnation of the Logos was 
analogous to the appearance of angels in human 
shapes ; and to the supposed incarnations of hea- 
then deities, with the imagination of which a great 
majority of Christians were familiar, as converts 
from Gentilism. f One of the latest writers on 
the history of Christian doctrines, Miinter, late 
Bishop of Zealand, observes, that w The Catho- 
lic Fathers, who maintained in opposition to the 
Gnostics the reality of the body of Christ, appear 
in part to have placed the human nature of Christ 
in this body ; and their common expressions and 
representations show clearly, *th at they had very 
imperfect conceptions concerning this nature, cor- 
responding to those entertained by the heathen, by 
the learned Jews, and by all parties of Christians, 
concerning the appearances of God or of gods in 
the ancient world." — " The well-known error of 
Apollinaris, that Jesus had only an animal soul, 
the principle of life; and that the Divine Logos 

* Advers. Praxeam, c. 16. [See, further, Norton's Evidences of 
the Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. II. p. 252, seqq., and Vol. III. 
p. 174, seqq.] 

t "Alia sunt quae Deus in aemulationem elegerit sapientiae secula- 
ris. Et tamen apud illam facilius creditur Jupiter taurus factus aut 
cygnus, quam vere homo Christus penes Marcionem. , ' Tertuilian, 
De Came Christi, c. 4. 



118 HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE 

performed in him all the functions of an intelligent 
soul, was by no means so new as it was represent- 
ed to be in the fourth century." Among the Fa- 
thers, according to Miinter, Tertullian was perhaps 
the first who affirmed Jesus to have a proper hu- 
man soul ; although he adds, that some passages 
may be adduced from him which appear to favor 
the contrary opinion.* Similar remarks to those 
quoted from Miinter are made by Neander in his 
Ecclesiastical History, f 

Such, we may conclude, was the state of opin- 
ion respecting the Incarnation from the time of 
Justin Martyr, about the middle of the second 
century, to that of Origen, in the third century. 
It is a remarkable fact, that the foundations of 
the doctrine of the deity of Christ were laid in 
the virtual rejection of the truth of his being, 
properly speaking, a man ; a truth at the present 
day almost undisputed. This fact was admitted 
only in words ; the sense of which was nearly the 
same, as when angels assuming a human shape 
are spoken of as men in the Old Testament. It 
may be observed, also, that in this, as in other 
doctrines, the ancient Fathers had a great ad- 
vantage over those who in later times have been 
denominated Orthodox; as their doctrine, which 
represented the Logos as constituting the whole 
of the intelligent nature of Christ, or, in other 
words, made the Logos and Christ identical, was 

* Dogmengeschichte, Band II. H. I. 269 - 274. 
t Band I. 1063, 1064 ; II. 905. [See Torrey's Translation, I. 635: 
II. 425.] 



OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION. 119 

neither absurd in its statement, nor abhorrent to 
our natural feelings. But there is another remark, 
which, though not immediately to our present pur- 
pose, is still more important. When we find that 
in the second century Christ was no longer con- 
sidered as a man, properly speaking, but as the 
incarnate Logos of God, we perceive how imper- 
fect a knowledge had been preserved by unwritten 
tradition, not merely of the doctrines of our relig- 
ion, but of the impression which its historical facts 
must have made upon the first believers ; for if 
Christ were a man in the proper sense of the 
word, those who were conversant with him while 
on earth undoubtedly believed him to be so. In 
the passage of our religion from the Jews to whom 
it had been taught, to the Gentiles through whom 
it has been transmitted to us, the current of tradi- 
tion was interrupted. Hence followed, even in the 
second century, a state of opinion respecting the 
facts and doctrines of Christianity, which renders 
it evident, that neither Christianity itself, nor those 
writings from which we derive our knowledge of 
it, had their origin, or received their character, in 
that age. The Christianity of the Gospels is not 
that of the earliest Christian Fathers. Though 
they had departed but little from the spirit of our 
religion, or from its essential doctrines ; and though 
their works, (I speak of the Fathers of the first three 
centuries,) notwithstanding the disrespect and un- 
just prejudices of many in modern times, are monu- 
ments of noble minds ; yet it is equally true, that 
we find in their writings the doctrines of Chris- 

15 



120 HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE 

tianity intimately blended with opinions derived 
either from the philosophy of the age, or from the 
popular notions of Jews and Gentiles, or having 
their source in the peculiar circumstances in which 
they themselves were placed. 

We come now to Origen, in the first half of the 
third century, and with him new opinions open 
upon us. Origen fully and consistently main- 
tained the doctrine of a human soul in Jesus. 
Imbued with the principles of Platonism, he be- 
lieved this soul, in common with all other souls, 
to have pre-existed, and in its pre-existent state 
to have, through its entire purity and moral per- 
fection, become thoroughly filled and penetrated 
by the Logos, of whom all other souls partake in 
proportion to their love toward him. It thus be- 
came one with the Logos, and formed the bond of 
union between the body of Jesus and the divinity 
of the Logos; in consequence of which both the 
soul and body of the Saviour, being wholly mixed 
with and united to the Logos, partook of his di- 
vinity and were transformed into something di- 
vine.* But from the illustrations which Origen 

* Eiy Beov ^crape fa Ktvai. Cont. Cels. Lib. III. § 41. p. 474. The 
words should not be rendered, as they are by Munseher, ; ' transformed 
into God " (in Gott iibergegangen). Origen, here, as often elsewhere, 
uses Beos (God), not in our modern sense, as a proper name, but as a 
common name. This use of the term, which was common to him 
with his contemporaries, and continued to be common after his 
time, is illustrated by his remarks upon the passage, li and the Logos 
was God " (Opp IV. p. 48, seqq.) ; in which he contends, that the 
Logos was " god " in an inferior sense;— not, as we should say, God. 



OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION. 121 

uses, respecting the connection between the Logoa 
and the human nature of Christ, it is clear that he 
had no conception of that form of the doctrine 
which prevailed after his time. " We do not," 
he says, " suppose the visible and sensible body 
of Jesus to have been God, nor yet his soul, of 
which he declared, My soul is sorrowful even unto 
death. But as he who says, / the Lord am the 
God of all flesh, and, There was no other God 
before me and there shall be none after me, is be- 
lieved by the Jews to have been God using the 
soul and body of the prophet as an organ ; and 
as, among the Gentiles, he who said, 

1 1 know the number of the sands and the measure of the deep, 
And I understand the mute and hear him who speaks not,' 

is understood to be a god, addressing men by the 
voice of the Pythoness; — so we believe that the 
divine Logos, the Son of the God of all, spoke in 
Jesus when he said, 1 am the way and the truth and 

the life ; I am the living bread which has 

descended from heaven; and when he uttered other 
similar declarations." A little after, Origen com- 
pares that union of the soul and body of Jesus 

but a god, or rather, not the Divine Being, but a divme being ; and in 
which he maintains that '■ beside the True God, many beings, by par- 
ticipation of God, become divine" literally, " become gods." 

The full illustration of the use of the term god as a common name 
would, I think, throw much light upon the opinions both of the an- 
cient Heathens and Christians. But this is not the place to enter 
upon it. [On this subject see the author's Evidences of the Genuine- 
ness of the Gospels, Vol. III. Additional Note D, "On the Use of 
the words Qeos and Deus." Compare also the quotation before given 
from Clement of Alexandria, p. 113, and p. 114, note*.] 



122 HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE 

with the Logos, by which they are made one, to 
the union of all Christians with their Lord as de- 
scribed by St. Paul (1 Cor. vi. 17), " He who is 
joined to the Lord is one spirit with him," though 
he represents it as a union of a far higher char- 
acter, and more divine.* 

In this unsettled state the doctrine of the Incar- 
nation continued till the fourth century. It is re- 
marked by Miinscher, when he comes to treat of 
the controversies which then arose, that " Most of 
the earlier Fathers spoke simply of a human body, 
which the Logos or Son of God had assumed. 
Origen, on the contrary, ascribed to Christ an in- 
telligent human soul, and considered this as the 
bond of union between his divine nature and his 
human body. Some Fathers had also spoken 
occasionally of a union or commingling of man 
with God ; but their propositions concerning it 
were indefinite and incidental, and had obtained 
no authority in the Church ; and the opinion of 
Origen was far from being an hypothesis gen- 
erally received." f I quote this as the state- 
ment of a respectable writer; without assenting 
to all the expressions, as may appear from what 
precedes. 

In the fourth century, the doctrine of Athanasius 
concerning the Trinity being established by the 
Council of Nice, and its partisans, in opposition 

* Origen, Cont. Cels. Lib. II § 9. Opp. I. 392-394. 
t Dogmengeschichte Band IV. § 77. 



OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION. 123 

to the Arians, zealously using the strongest lan- 
guage concerning the divinity of the Son as con- 
substantial with that of the Father, the Orthodox 
faith was now verging to such a profession of their 
equality, that to represent the Logos as suffering 
in his divine nature began to appear an error, like 
that of representing the Father as suffering. On 
the other hand, the Arians, viewing the Logos as 
a created being, found no difficulty in retaining the 
ancient doctrine concerning his simple incarnation 
in a human body, and his having suffered in the 
proper sense of the words. Among their opponents, 
likewise, Apollinaris, who had been the friend of 
Athanasius, and distinguished for his zeal in as- 
serting the Orthodox faith concerning the Trinity, 
undertook, with a less fortunate result, to define 
the doctrine of the Incarnation. He, with the Ari- 
ans and the ancient Fathers, maintained that the 
Logos supplied in Christ the place of the human 
intellect. He also freely used the language, which 
has since become common, concerning the suffer- 
ings of the Divinity in Christ ; and his opponents, 
in consequence, represented him as believing the 
Divine Nature to be passible. But it seems most 
probable that he, like others, used this language 
without meaning. His doctrine was condemned 
by the second general council, that of Constan- 
tinople (A. D. 381), in which it was decreed that 
Christ was not only " the perfect Logos of God," 
but also " a perfect man possessed of a rational 
soul"; and the latter doctrine was thus at last 
established as Orthodox. 

15* 



124 HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE 

The Deity being impassible, it would seem, in- 
deed, if Christ really suffered, that it was necessary 
to regard him as a perfect man, capable of suffer- 
ing. But, on the other hand, if the sufferings of 
Christ were those of a man only, it might seem to 
follow that Christ was only a man, and the whole 
mystery of the Incarnation would disappear. 

In this state of things recourse was had to a 
doctrine which has been denominated the Com- 
munication of Properties.* It was maintained 
that, the divine and human natures in Christ being 
united in one person, what was true of either na- 
ture might be asserted of Christ. Christ then 
being God, it might be affirmed with truth that 
God was born, hungered, thirsted, was crucified, 
and died. It was maintained, at the same time, 
that the Divine Nature was impassible and un- 
changeable. The last proposition annihilated all 
meaning in the former, not leaving it even the 
poor merit of being the most offensive mode of 
expressing some conception that might be appre- 
hended as possible. What sense those who have 
asserted the sufferings of God have fancied that 
the words might have, is a question which, after 
all that has been written upon the subject, is left 
very much to conjecture. I imagine that it is, at 
the present day, the gross conception of some who 
think themselves Orthodox on this point, that the 
divine and human natures being united in Christ 
as the Mediator, a compound nature, different from 
either and capable of suffering, was thus formed. 



OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION. 125 

The doctrine of the Communication of Prop- 
erties, says Le Clerc, " is as intelligible as if one 
were to say that there is a circle which is so united 
with a triangle ; that the circle has the properties 
of the triangle, and the triangle those of the cir- 
cle." * It is discussed at length by Petavius, with 
his usual redundance of learning. The vast folio 
of that writer containing the history of the Incar- 
nation, is one of the most striking and most mel- 
ancholy monuments of human folly which the 
world has to exhibit. In the history of other de- 
partments of science, we find abundant errors and 
extravagances ; but Orthodox theology seems to 
have been the peculiar region of words without 
meaning ; of doctrines confessedly false in their 
proper sense, and explained in no other ; of the 
most portentous absurdities put forward as truths 
of the highest import; and of contradictory prop- 
ositions thrown together without an attempt to 
reconcile them. A main error running through 
the whole system, as well as other systems of false 
philosophy, is, that words possess an intrinsic 
meaning, not derived from the usage of men ; 
that they are not mere signs of human ideas, but 
a sort of real entities, capable of signifying what 
transcends our conceptions; and that when they 
express to human reason only an absurdity, they 
may still be significant of a high mystery or a 
hidden truth, and are to be believed without being 
understood. 

* Ars Critica, P. II. S. L c. 9. § 11. 



126 HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE 

In the fifth century, the doctrine of the Hypo- 
static Union was still further defined. Before this 
time, says Mosheim, "it had been settled by the 
decrees of former councils [those of Nice and Con- 
stantinople] that Christ was truly God and truly 
man ; but there had as yet been no controversy 
and no decision of any council concerning the 
mode and effect of the union of the two natures 
in Christ. In consequence, there was a want of 
agreement among Christian teachers in their lan- 
guage concerning this mystery."* The contro- 
versy which now arose had its origin in the de- 
nial of Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, that 
Mary could in strictness of speech be called " the 
Mother of God," a title which had been applied to 
her by Athanasius himself. Though we are accus- 
tomed to expressions more shocking, yet this title 
may perhaps sound harshly in the ears of most 
Protestants. Mosheim, however, who is solicitous 
to pass some censure upon Nestorius, finds but 
two faults or errors to impute to him, the first of 
which is, that " he, rashly, and to the offence of 
many, wished to set aside an innocent title which 
had been long in common use." f The other is, 
that he presumptuously employed unsuitable ex- 
pressions and comparisons in speaking of a mys- 
tery transcending all comprehension. Cyril was at 
this time patriarch of Alexandria, and the rival of 
Nestorius, — a turbulent, ambitious, unprincipled 
man. He took advantage of the opinions of Nes- 

* Hist. Eccles. Saec. V. Pars II. c. 5. § 5. 

t " -• vocabulum dudum tritum et innocens. v Ibid., § 9. 



OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION. 127 

tonus to charge him with heresy, and procured the 
calling of the third general council, that of Ephe- 
sus, A. D. 431. In this council Cyril presided, and 
the heresy of Nestorius was anathematized^ and 
Nestorius himself deposed, and denounced as a 
" second Judas." On a subject concerning which 
the parties understood neither each other nor them- 
selves, it has been found by modern inquirers hard 
to determine in what particulars the heresy of the 
" new Judas " differed from the Orthodoxy of Cyril, 
except in the denial that Mary could in strictness 
of speech be called " the Mother of God." In gen- 
eral, Nestorius was charged with making so wide 
a distinction between the human and divine na- 
tures in Christ, as to separate Christ into two per- 
sons. There is, however, no ground for supposing 
that Nestorius maintained so heretical and so ra- 
tional an opinion, as that God was one person, and 
the inspired messenger of God another. Whatever 
was meant by the accusation of his dividing Christ 
into two persons, he himself earnestly denied its 
truth; while, on the other hand, it appears that. 
Cyril, in his eagerness to widen the distance be- 
tween himself and his rival, either fell into the 
snare of the Apollinarian heresy, or at least grazed 
its limits. Cyril prevailed in his factious contest, 
through his influence with the officers of the im- 
perial household, and the bribes which he lavished 
upon them ; for what was Orthodoxy was to be 
determined in the last resort by the Emperor Theo- 
dosius, or rather by the women and eunuchs of his 
court. " Thanks to the purse of St. Cyril," says 



128 HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE 

Le Clerc, " the Romish Church, which regards 
councils as infallible, is not, at the present day, 
Nestorian."* The creeds of Protestants are equally 
indebted to St. Cyril for their purity. 

But notwithstanding the decision of the Council 
of Ephesus, the contest still raged. The monophysite 
doctrine, as it was called, that is, the doctrine of 
but a single nature in Christ, the heresy of Apolli- 
naris, on the very borders of which lay the Ortho- 
doxy of Cyril, was maintained by Eutyches, who 
had been a friend of Cyril and a bitter opponent 
of the Nestorians. Eutyches was condemned and 
deposed by Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople. 
But though Cyril was dead, his party still pre- 
dominated. A council was called at Ephesus, the 
proceedings of which were determined by the will 
and the violence of Dioscurus, who had succeeded 
him as patriarch of Alexandria. The opinions oi 
Eutyches were sanctioned by it; and Flavian, who 
was present, suffered such personal outrages from 
his theological opponents, that he only escaped to 
die on the third day following. This council, 
however, the Church of Rome does not regard as 
oecumenical and entitled to authority. Leo, then 
pope, joined the party opposed to Dioscurus, which 
througi his aid finally prevailed; and the Council 
of Ephesus received a name, of which we may best 
perhaps express the force in English by calling it 
a Council of Banditti.f 

* Biblioth. Univers., Suite du Tome XXI. p. 27. 

*f 2wob6s \rj(TTpLKJ]. 



OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION. 129 

So far, however, as its authority was acknowl- 
edged, the Church had been plunged by it into 
the monophysite heresy. But a new council was 
called, which is reckoned as the fourth general 
council, that of Chalcedon, A. D. 451. The ma- 
jority of this council was composed of monophy- 
sites ; but the Emperor and the Pope favored the 
opposite party. Their authority prevailed; and 
the result may be given in the words of Gibbon. 
" The Legates threatened, the Emperor was abso- 
lute In the name of the fourth general coun- 
cil, the Christ in one person, but in two natures, 
was announced to the Catholic world : an invisi- 
ble line was drawn between the heresy of Apolli- 
naris and the faith of St. Cyril, and the road to 
paradise, a bridge as sharp as a razor, was sus- 
pended over the abyss by the master hand of the 
theological artist."* "This council," says Mo- 
sheim, " decided that all Christians should believe 
that Jesus Christ is one person in two distinct 
natures without any confusion or mixture, which 
has continued to be the common faith." f It has 
continued to be the doctrine of creeds ; what is 
now the faith of those who consider themselves as 
believers in the Incarnation, is probably a question 
which the greater number have never thought of 
answering. 

Of the language, however, that has been used 
in modern times concerning this doctrine, it may 

* [Decline and Fall, &c., Ch. XL VII.] 
t Hist. Eccles. Ssec. V. P. II. c. 5. § 15. 



130 HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE 

be worth while to produce one or two speci- 
mens. 

Lord Bacon gives us this account of the belief 
of a Christian : — 

"He believes a Virgin to be a Mother of a 
Son ; and that very Son of hers to be her Maker. 
He believes him to have been shut up in a nar- 
row room, whom heaven and earth could not con- 
tain. He believes him to have been born in 
time, who was and is from everlasting. He be- 
lieves him to have been a weak child carried in 
arms, who is the Almighty; and him once to 
have died, who only hath life and immortality 
in himself."* 

The following passage is from a sermon by Lr. 
South : — 

u But now was there ever any wonder compara 
ble to this! to behold Divinity thus clothed in flesh 
the Creator of all things humbled not only to the 
company, but also to the cognation, of his creatures ! 
It is as if we should imagine the whole world not 
only represented upon, but also contained in, one of 
our little artificial globes ; or the body of the stin 
enveloped in a cloud as big as a marts hand ; all 
which would be looked upon as astonishing im- 
possibilities ; and yet as short of the other, as the 
greatest Finite is of an Infinite, between which the 
disparity is immeasurable. For that God should 
thus in a manner transform Himself, and subdue 
and master all his glories to a possibility of human 

* Characters of a Believing Christian. 



OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION. 131 

apprehension and converse, the best reason would 
have thought it such a thing as God could not do, 
had it not seen it actually done. It is (as it were) 
to cancel the essential distances of things, to re- 
move the bounds of nature, to bring heaven and 
earth, and (which is more) both ends of the con- 
tradiction, together." * 

To one wholly ignorant of theological contro- 
versy, these passages might have the air of mali- 
cious irony. But a little further acquaintance 
with creeds and theological systems would sat- 
isfy him that such language may be used in 
earnest. 

It is with some hesitation that I adduce another 
passage from the same sermon of South, which 
occurs a few pages after what has been quoted. 
When thus treating, as it were, of the morbid 
anatomy of the human mind, it is often a question 
how far one ought to proceed in exhibiting to com- 
mon view the more disgusting cases of disease. 
The reverence due to the subjects which are pro- 
faned, and an unwillingness to shock the feelings 
of his readers, should restrain a writer from any 
unnecessary display. But it is not a little impor- 
tant that the character of the doctrine under con- 
sideration, and the monstrous extravagances to 
which it leads, should be well understood. In 
reading, then, the following words, it is to be rec- 
ollected that the author was a man distinguished 
as a fine writer, whose uncommon natural talents 

* South's Sermons, 6th ed., 1727, Vol. III. p. 299. Sermon oa 
Christmas Day, 1665. 

16 



132 HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE 

had been cultivated by learning. From the works 
of grosser minds, it would be easy to produce man) 
passages more intolerable. 

" Men," says South, 44 cannot persuade them- 
selves that a Deity and Infinity should lie within 
so narrow a compass as the contemptible dimen- 
sions of an human body; that Omnipotence, Om- 
niscience, and Omnipresence should be ever wrapt 
in swaddling-clothes, and abased to the homely 
usages of a stable and a manger ; that the glo- 
rious Artificer of the whole universe, who spread 
out the heavens like a curtain, and laid the founda- 
tions of the earth, could ever turn carpenter, and 
exercise an inglorious trade in a little cell. They 
cannot imagine that He who commands the cattle 
upon a thousand hills, and takes up the ocean in the 
hollow of his hand, could be subject to the mean- 
nesses of hunger and thirst, and be afflicted in all 
his appetites. That he who once created, and at 
present governs, and shall hereafter judge, the 
world, shall be abused in all his concerns and rela- 
tions, be scourged, spit upon, mocked,, and at last 
crucified. All which are passages which lie ex- 
tremely cross to the notions and conceptions that 
reason has framed to itself, of that high and 
impassible perfection that resides in the divine 
nature." 

There is a short poem written by Watts after 
the death of Locke,* in which, on account of " the 
wavering and the cold assent" which that great 

* On Mr Locke's Annotations, left behind him at his death [See 
Watts's Works, IV. 396, 397] 



OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION. 133 

man was supposed by him to have given to 
" themes divinely true," he invokes the aid of 
Charity that he may see him in heaven. What 
were these " themes divinely true," appears in the 
following verses : — 

" Reason could scarce sustain to see 
The Almighty One, the Eternal Three, 
Or bear the infant Deity ; 
Scarce could her pride descend to own 
Her Maker stooping from his throne, 
And dressed in glories so unknown. 
A ransomed world, a bleeding God, 
And Heaven appeased by flowing blood, 
Were themes too painful to be understood. ,, 

The Eternal Three ! The Deity an infant! God 
bleeding! The Maker of the universe appeasing 
Heaven by his flowing blood ! These are not doc- 
trines to be trifled with. Consider what meaning 
can be put upon these w T ords ; take the least offen- 
sive sense they can be used to express, and then 
let any one ask himself this question : If these 
doctrines are not doctrines of Christianity, what 
are they? It is a question that deserves serious 
consideration. There is but an alternative. If 
they are not doctrines of Christianity, then they 
are among the most insane fictions of human 
folly: the monstrous legends of Hindoo supersti- 
tion present nothing more revolting, or more in 
contrast with the truths of our religion. 

But, in fact, some of the most portentous of 
these expressions are used utterly without mean- 
ing. They can express nothing which an intelli- 
gent man will admit that he intends to express, 



134 HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE 

Attempt to give a sense to the propositions, God 
was an infant; God poured out his blood; God 
died. Even he whom familiarity has rendered 
insensible to language really equivalent, may 
shudder at so naked a statement of what he 
professes to believe. Let him attempt to give 
a sense to these words, and just in proportion 
as he approaches toward the shadow of a mean- 
ing, will he approach toward a conception, from 
which, if he have the common sentiments of a 
man and a Christian, he will shrink back with 
abhorrence. 

Since Christianity, then, has been represented as 
teaching such doctrines, and even as suspending 
the salvation of men upon their belief, is it won- 
derful that it has had, and that it has, so little 
power over men's minds and hearts ? Could 
means more effectual have been devised for de- 
stroying its credit and counteracting its efficacy ? 
If true religion be the great support of the moral 
virtues, and essential to the happiness of individ- 
uals and the well-being of society, is it strange 
that there has been so little virtue, happiness, or 
peace in the world ? And what, then, are our 
duties as Christians, and as friends of human 
kind ? What is the duty of all enlightened men, — 
of all qualified to inquire into the character and 
history of these doctrines, — of all who profess or 
countenance them with an uncertain faith ? Of 
such as are fitted to think and act upon subjects 
of this nature, there is but one class to whom a 
solemn appeal may not be made. It consists of 



OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION. 135 

those who, after a thorough examination, have felt 
themselves compelled to receive these doctrines — 
if the thing be possible — as doctrines taught by 
Christ and his Apostles. 



SECTION VI. 

DIFFICULTIES THAT MAY REMAIN IN SOME MINDS RESPECT 
ING THE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE ALLEGED BY TRINITA" 
RIANS. 

As I have endeavored to express myself as con- 
cisely as possible, I shall not recapitulate what I 
have written. If any one should think the argu- 
ments that have been urged deserve consideration, 
but yet not be fully satisfied of their correctness, 
it will be but the labor of an hour or two to read 
them over again. The time will be well spent, 
should it contribute toward fn »,ng his faith from 
an essential error, and giving him clearer, more 
correct, and consequently more ennobling and op- 
erative conceptions of Christianity. 

Here, then, as I have had occasion to say before, 
I might close the discussion. But even if the truth 
for which I am contending be fully established, still 
difficulties may remain in some minds which it is 
desirable to remove. Like a great part of Scrip- 
ture, the passages adduced in support of the Trin- 
itarian doctrines have been interpreted upon no 
general principles, or upon none which can be 
defended. But many persons have been taught 
from their childhood to associate a false mean- 
ing with words and texts of the Bible. This 



PREJUDICES TO BE REMOVED. 137 

meaning, borrowed from the schools of technical 
theology, is that which immediately presents itself 
to their minds, when those words and texts occur. 
They can hardly avoid considering the expositions 
so familiar to them, as those alone that could 
be obvious to an unprejudiced reader. He who 
would break the associations which they have be- 
tween certain words and a certain meaning, and 
substitute the true sense for that to which they 
are accustomed, appears to them to be doing vio- 
lence to the language of Scripture. 

Now these prejudices, so far as they are capable 
of being removed, can be removed only by estab- 
lishing correct principles of interpretation, applying 
them to the subject in hand, and pointing out the 
true or the probable meaning of the more impor- 
tant passages that have been misunderstood. This, 
therefore, I shall endeavor to do in the sections that 
follow. 



SECTION VIL 

ON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE. 

Supposing the doctrines maintained by Trin- 
itarians to be capable of proof, the state of the 
case between them and their opponents would be 
this. They quote certain texts, and explain them 
in a sense which, as they believe, supports their 
opinions. We maintain that the words were in- 
tended to express a very different meaning. How 
is the question to be decided ? We do not deny 
that there are certain expressions in these texts, 
which, nakedly considered, will bear a Trinitarian 
sense ; how is it then to be ascertained, whether 
this sense or some other was intended by the 
writer ? 

In order to answer this question, it is necessary 
to enter into some explanation concerning the 
nature of language and the principles of its in- 
terpretation. The art of interpretation derives its 
origin from the intrinsic ambiguity of language. 
What I mean to express by this term is the fact, 
that a very large portion of sentences, considered 
in themselves, that is, if regard be had merely to 
the words of which they are composed, are capable 
of expressing not one meaning only, but two or 
more different meanings ; or (to state this fact in 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.. 139 

other terms) that in very many cases, the same 
sentence, like the same single word, may be used 
to express various and often very different senses. 
Now in a great part of what we find written con- 
cerning the interpretation of language, and in a 
large portion of the specimens of criticism which 
we meet with, especially upon the Scriptures, this 
fundamental truth, this fact which lies at the very 
bottom of the art of interpretation, has either been 
overlooked, or not regarded in its relations and 
consequences. It may be illustrated by a single 
example. St. John thus addresses the Christians to 
whom he was writing, in his First Epistle, ii. 20 : — 

" You have an anointing from the Holy One, and 
know all thing sP 

If we consider these words in themselves merely, 
we shall perceive how uncertain is their significa- 
tion, and how many different meanings they may 
be used to express. The first clause, " You have 
an anointing from the Holy One," may signify, — 

1. Through the favor of God, you have become 
Christians or believers in Christ; anointing being 
a ceremony of consecration, and Christians being 
considered as consecrated and set apart from the 
rest of mankind. 

2. Or it may mean, You have been truly sancti- 
fied in heart and life : a figure borrowed from out- 
ward consecration being used to denote inward 
holiness. 

3. Or, You have been endued with miraculous 
-powers : consecrated as prophets and teachers in 
the Christian community. 



140 PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 

4. Or, You have been well instructed in the truths 
of Christianity* 

I forbear to mention other meanings, which the 
word anointing might be used to express. These 
are sufficient for our purpose. 

The term Holy One, in such a relation as it 
holds to the other words in the present sentence, 
may denote either God, or Christ, or some other 
being. 

You know all things, literally expresses the mean- 
ing, You have the attribute of omniscience. Beside 
this meaning it may signify, You are fully ac- 
quainted with all the objects of human knowl- 
edge; or, You know every truth connected with 
Christianity; or, You have all the knowledge ne- 
cessary to form your faith and direct your con- 
duct; or the proposition may require some other 
limitation; for all things is one of those terms, 
the meaning of which is continually to be re- 
strained and modified by a regard to the subject 
present to the mind of the writer. 

This statement may afford some imperfect notion 
of the various senses which the words before us 
may be used to express; and of the uncertainty 
that must exist about their meaning, when they 
are regarded without reference to those considera- 
tions by which it ought to be determined. I say, 
imperfect, because we have really kept one very 
important consideration in mind, that they were 
written by an Apostle to a Christian community. 

* See Wetstein's notes on this passage, and on 1 Tim. it. 7. 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 141 

Putting this out of view, it would not be easy to 
fix the limit of their possible meanings. It must 
be remembered that this passage has been adduced 
merely by way of illustration ; and that, if it were 
necessary, an indefinite number of similar exam- 
ples might be quoted. 

I will mention, and I can barely mention, some 
of the principal causes of the intrinsic ambiguity 
of language. 1. Almost every word is used in a 
variety of senses ; and some words in a great 
variety. Now, as we assign one or another of 
these senses to different words in a sentence, we 
change the meaning of the whole sentence. If 
they are important words, and the different senses 
which we assign vary much from each other, we 
change its meaning essentially. 2. But beside their 
common significations, words may be used in an 
undefined number of figurative senses. A large 
proportion of sentences may, therefore, be under- 
stood either figuratively or literally. Considered in 
themselves, they present no intrinsic character that 
may enable us to determine whether they are liter- 
al or figurative. They may often be understood in 
more than one literal, and in more than one figura- 
tive sense ; and a choice is then to be made among 
all these different senses. 3. A very large portion 
of sentences which are not what rhetoricians call 
figurative, are yet not to be understood strictly, 
not to the letter, but with some limitation, and 
often with a limitation which contracts exceedingly 
their literal meaning. u I do not," says Mr. Burke, 
addressing the friend to whom he is writing, in his 



142 PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 

Reflections on the French Revolution, — "1 do 
not conceive you to be of that sophistical, cap- 
tious spirit, or of that uncandid dulness, as to re- 
quire for every general observation or sentiment an 
explicit detail of the correctives and exceptions, 
which reason will presume to be included in all 
the general propositions which come from reason- 
able men." Sentences that are general or univer- 
sal in their terms, are often to be regarded merely 
in relation to the subject treated of, or the persons 
addressed ; and their meaning is often to be greatly 
limited by a regard to one or another of these con- 
siderations. 4. In eloquence, in poetry, in popular 
writing of every sort, and not least in the Scrip- 
tures, a great part of the language used is the 
language of emotion or feeling. The strict and 
literal meaning of this language is, of course, a 
meaning which the words may be used to ex- 
press; but this is rarely the true meaning. The 
language of feeling is very different from that of 
philosophical accuracy. The mind, when strongly 
excited, delights in general, unlimited propositions, 
in hyperboles, in bold figures of every sort, in forci- 
ble presentations of thought addressed indirectly 
to the understanding through the medium of the 
imagination, and in the utterance of those tem- 
porary false judgments which are the natural re- 
sult, and consequently among the most natural 
expressions, of strong emotion. Different senses 
in which such language may be understood often 
present themselves ; and it is sometimes not easy 
to determine which to adopt. 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 143 

But further, language is conventional ; and the 
use of it varies much in different ages and na- 
tions. No uniform standard has existed by which 
to measure the expressions of men's conceptions 
and feelings. In one state of society, language 
assumes a bolder character, more unrestrained, 
and more remote from its proper sense ; in anoth- 
er, the modes of speech are more cool and exact. 
The expressions of compliment and respect, for 
instance, in France or Italy, and the expressions 
of the Orientals generally, are not proportional 
to our own. A sentence translated verbally from 
one language into another will often convey a 
stronger or more unlimited meaning than was 
intended by him who uttered it. "John," says 
our Saviour, " came neither eating nor drinking." * 
These words, as spoken by him, had nothing of 
the paradoxical character which would belong to 
them if now uttered for the first time in our own 
language. They meant only that John, leading 
an ascetic life, refrained from taking food after 
the common fashion, at regular meals. — "Work 
out your salvation," says St. Paul, " with fear and 
trembling." f The Apostle, who elsewhere exhorts 
Christians to "rejoice always," did not here intend 
that their life should be one of anxious dread ; and 
we may express his purpose by saying, " with ear- 
nest solicitude." He tells the Corinthians that they 
had received Titus with " fear and trembling," J 
by which words, in this place, he means what we 



* Matthew xi. 18 t Phiiippians ii. 12 $2 Cor. vii 15. 

17 



144 PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 

might call "respect and deference." — Christ saya, 
that he who would be his follower must " hate fa- 
ther and mother." * The genius o*f our language 
hardly admits of so bold a figure, by which, how- 
ever, nothing more was signified, than that his 
followers must be prepared to sacrifice their dear- 
est affections in ffis cause. — But even where there 
is no peculiar boldness or strength of expression in 
the original, we are liable to be deceived by a want 
of analogy to our modes of speech. Figures and 
turns of expression familiar in one language are 
strange in another ; and an expression to which 
we are not accustomed strikes us with more force, 
and seems more significant, than one in common 
use, of which the meaning is in fact the same. 
We are very liable to mistake the purport of words 
which appear under an aspect unknown or infre- 
quent in our native tongue. The declaration, 
" I and my Father are one," f may seem to us at 
first sight almost too bold for a human being to 
use concerning God, merely because we are not 
accustomed to this expression in grave discourse. 
But in familiar conversation no one would mis- 
understand me, if, while transacting some busi- 
ness as the agent of a friend, I should say, " I 
and my friend are one"; meaning that I am fully 
empowered to act as his representative. The 
passage quoted is to be understood in a similar 
manner; and the liability to mistake its meaning 
arises only from our not being familiar with its 

• Luke xiv. 26. t John x. 30. 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION, 145 

use on solemn occasions. — "The Son of Man 
came to give his life a ransom for many." * We 
do not express the intended figure in this par- 
ticular form, the noun " ransom " being commonly 
employed by us only to denote a price paid to 
him who has had power over the ransomed. The 
passage has, consequently, been misunderstood; 
but the verb "ransom" has a wider significancy, 
corresponding to the sense of our Saviour ; and 
by a very slight change in the mode of expres- 
sion, the occasion of mistake is removed : " The 
Son of Man came to give his life to ransom 
many"; that is, to deliver them from the evils of 
ignorance, error, and sin. — " Whatever," said our 
Saviour to St. Peter, " thou shalt bind on earth 
will be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt 
loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." f This 
passage and another corresponding to it, in which 
the same authority is extended to the Apostles 
generally, J have been perverted to the worst pur- 
poses. The figure in which our Saviour expressed 
his meaning is not found in modern languages, 
but was familiar to the Jews. " To bind " with 
them signified "to forbid," and "to loose" signi- 
fied "to permit"; § and the meaning of Christ 
was, " I appoint you to preach my religion, by 
which what is forbidden is forbidden by God, 
and what is permitted is permitted by God." 
As its minister, you will speak in his name and 
with his authority, forbidding or permitting on 

* Matthew xx. 23. t Matthew xvi. 19. % Matthew xviii. IS 
S See Wetstein's note on Matthew xvi. 19 



f46 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 



earth what is forbidden or permitted in heaven. 
— It is further to be remarked, that, in some 
cases where there is this want of correspondence 
between languages, the verbal rendering of a pas- 
sage may be unintelligible, and even offensive; as 
in the address of St. Paul to the Corinthians, thus 
translated in the Common Version : u Ye are not 
straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your 
own bowels."* The meaning of St. Paul, which a 
reader of those words might hardly conjecture, is 
this : " You do not suffer from any deficiency in us, 
out you are deficient in your own affections." — 
Sometimes a verbal rendering gives a sense al- 
together false : " Now I beseech you, brethren, 
that ye all speak the same thing." f So St. 
Paul is represented as addressing the Corinthians 
in the Common Version. But "to speak the 
same thing" was a phrase used in Greek in a 
sense unknown in English, to denote u agreeing 
together " ; and the exhortation in fact was, that 
they should " all agree together." — These ex- 
amples, few as they are, may serve to illustrate 
the mistakes to which we are exposed from the 
want of analogy between languages ; and to show 
that the true meaning of a passage may be very 
different from the sense which, without further in- 

* 2 Cor. vi. 12. — To one acquainted with the French language, 
the character of the rendering in the Common Version may be illus- 
trated, by supposing a verbal translation of the following account of 
a tragic actress : "Elle sait emouvoir et toucher ; jamais comedienne 
n'eut plus d'entrailles " 

t 1 Cor. i. 10 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 14? 

quiry, we should receive from a verbal rendering 
of it into English. A verbal rendering of an an- 
cient author must be often false, ambiguous, or 
unintelligible, and when not exposed to graver 
charges, will commonly fail in preserving the full 
significancy, the spirit and character, of the origi- 
nal. 

Those which have been mentioned are some of 
the principal causes of the ambiguity of language ; 
or, as we may say in other terms, they are some of 
the principal modes in which this ambiguity mani- 
fests itself. But a full analysis of the subject, ac- 
companied by proper examples, would fill many 
pages. From what has been already said, the 
truth of the propositions maintained will, I think, 
appear, at least sufficiently for our present pur- 
pose. 

It is, then, to the intrinsic ambiguity of lan- 
guage, that the art of interpretation owes its ori- 
gin. If words and sentences were capable of ex- 
pressing but a single meaning, no art would be 
required in their interpretation. It would be, as a 
late writer,* thoroughly ignorant of the subject, 
supposes, a work to be performed merely with 
the assistance of a lexicon and grammar. The 
object of the art of interpretation is to enable us 
to solve the difficulties presented by the intrinsic 
ambiguity of language. It first teaches us to 
perceive the different meanings which any sen- 
tence may be used to express, as the different 

* Dr Thomas Chalmers. See the conclusion of the article Chri» 
tianity, in the Edinburgh Encyclopaedia. 
17* 



148 PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 

words of which it is composed are taken respec- 
tively in one sense or another; as it is understood 
literally, or figuratively ; strictly and to the letter, 
or popularly and in a modified sense ; as the lan- 
guage of emotion, or as a calm and unimpassioned 
expression of thoughts and sentiments ; as the lan- 
guage of one age or nation, or that of another; 
and it then teaches us (which is its ultimate pur- 
pose) to distinguish, among possible meanings, the 
actual meaning of the sentence, or that meaning 
which, in the particular case we are considering, 
was intended by the author. And in what man- 
ner does it enable us to do this ? Here, again, 
a full and particular answer to this question is 
not to be comprised in the compass of a few 
pages. The general answer is, that it enables 
us to do this by directing' our attention to all 
those considerations which render it probable that 
one meaning was intended by the writer rather 
than another. 

Some of these considerations are, the character 
of the writer, his habits of thinking and feeling, his 
common style of expression, and that of his age or 
nation, his settled opinions and belief, the extent 
of his knowledge, the general state of things dur- 
ing the time in which he lived, the particular local 
and temporary circumstances present to his mini 
while writing, the character and condition of those 
for whom he wrote, the opinions of others to 
which he had reference, the connection of the sen- 
tence, or the train of thought by which it is pre- 
ceded and followed, and, finally, the manner in 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 149 

which he was understood by those for whom he 
wrote, — a consideration, the importance of which 
varies with circumstances. The considerations to 
be attended to by an interpreter are here reduced 
to their elements. I cannot dwell long enough 
upon the subject, to point out all the different 
forms and combinations in which they may ap- 
pear. But where the words which compose a sen- 
tence are such, that the sentence may be used to 
express more than one meaning, its true meaning 
is to be determined solely by a reference to ex- 
trinsic considerations, such as have been stated. 
In the case supposed (a case of very frequent oc- 
currence), all that we can learn from the mere 
words of the sentence is the different meanings 
which the sentence is capable of expressing. It is 
obvious that the words, considered in themselves, 
can afford no assistance in determining which of 
those different meanings was that intended by the 
author. This problem is to be solved solely by a 
process of reasoning, founded upon such considera- 
tions as have been stated. 

I will illustrate this account of the principles of 
interpretation by an example of their application. 

Of Milton, Dr. Johnson says, that 

" He had considered creation in its whole extent, 
and his descriptions are therefore learned." * 

"But he could not be always in other worlds, he 
must sometimes return to earth, and talk of things 
visible and known." f 

• [Life of Milton. Works, IX. 167.] f [Ibid., p. 168.] 



150 PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 

Addison tells us, that " he knew all the arts of 
affecting the mind."* 

Bentley, in the Preface to his edition of the Par- 
adise Lost, speaks of him thus : — 

u He could spatiate at large through the com- 
pass of the whole universe, and through all heaven 
beyond it; could survey all periods of time from 
before the creation to the consummation of all 
thins^." 

"Milton's strong pinion now not heaven can 
bound," are the words of Pope.f 

" He passed," says Gray, " the flaming bounds 
of place and time, and saw the living throne" of 
God.J 

In the age subsequent to his own, " he con- 
tinued," says Aikin, "to stand alone, an insulated 
form of unrivalled greatness," § 

Why do we not understand all this language 
strictly and to the letter? Why, without a mo- 
ment's hesitation, do we put upon the expressions 
of all these different authors a sense so very re- 
mote from that which their words are adapted to 
convey, when viewed independently of any extrin- 
sic consideration by which they may be explained? 
The answer is, because we are satisfied (no matter 
how) that all these writers believed Milton to be a 
man, and one not endued with supernatural pow- 
ers. This consideration determines us at once to 

* [Spectator, No 333 ] 

t [Imitations of Horace, Book II. Ep. I. 99.] 

| [Ode on the Progress of Poesy, III. 2.] 

{ [lietters to a Young Lady on English Poetry, Letter XL] 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 151 

regard their language as figurative, or as requiring 
very great limitation of its verbal meaning. 

Let us attend to another example of the applica- 
tion of those principles which have been laid down. 
Our Saviour says, " Whoever lives and has faith 
in me will never die";* and similar declarations, 
as every one must remember, were often repeated 
by him. I recollect to have met with a passage in 
an infidel writer, in which it was maintained that 
these declarations were to be understood literally ; 
and that Christ meant to assure his disciples that 
they should not suffer the common lot of man. 
Why do we not understand them literally ? Be- 
cause we are satisfied that our Saviour's character 
was such that he would not predict a falsehood. 
An infidel, likewise, might easily satisfy himself 
that his character was such that he would not pre- 
dict what the next day's experience might prove to 
be a falsehood. 

I will give one more example : u Unless you eat 
the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, 
you have not life within you."f He who will turn 
to the context of the passage may see that this 
declaration is repeated and insisted upon by our 
Saviour, in a variety of phrases "and in different 
relations. The Roman Catholics understand this 
passage, when viewed in connection with the 
words used in instituting our Lord's supper, as a 
decisive argument for the doctrine of transubstan- 
tiation. If either doctrine were capable of proof 

* John xi. 26. t John vi. 53. 



152 PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 

I should certainly think that there was no passage 
in Scripture which went so far to prove the doc- 
trine of the Trinity, as this does to prove the doc- 
trine of transubstantiation. Why, then, do we not 
understand the words in the sense of the Roman 
Catholics ? Why do we suppose a figure so bold, 
and to our ears so harsh, as we are compelled to 
suppose, if we do not understand them literally ? 
Solely because we have such notions of the char- 
acter and doctrines of our Saviour, that we are 
satisfied that he would not teach anything irra- 
tional or absurd ; and that the declaration in ques- 
tion would be very irrational, if understood literally 
without reference to the doctrine of transubstan- 
tiation ; and altogether absurd, if supposed to im- 
ply the truth of this doctrine. It is upon the same 
principle that we interpret a very large proportion 
of all the figurative language which we meet with. 
We at once reject the literal meaning of the words, 
and understand them as figurative, because, if we 
did not do this, they would convey some meaning 
which contradicts common sense ; and it would 
be inconsistent with our notions of the writer, to 
suppose him to intend such a meaning. But this 
principle, which is adopted unconsciously in the 
interpretation of all other writings, has been gross- 
ly disregarded in the interpretation of Scripture. 
If one should interpret any other writings (except 
those in the exact sciences) in the same manner in 
which the Scriptures have been explained, he might 
find as many absurdities in the former as there are 
pretended mysteries in the latter. 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 153 

Upon the principle just stated, we may reject 
the literal meaning of a passage, when we cannot 
pronounce with confidence what is its true mean- 
ing. The words of our Saviour just quoted are 
an example in point. One may be fully justified 
in rejecting their literal meaning, who is wholly 
unable to determine their true meaning. To do 
this is certainly no easy matter. Similar difficul- 
ties, that is, passages about the true meaning of 
which we can feel no confidence, though we may 
confidently reject some particular meaning which 
the words will bear, are to be found in all othei 
ancient writings as well as the Scriptures. 

If the facts and principles respecting interpreta- 
tion which have been stated are correct, any one 
who will examine what has been written concern- 
ing this subject may perceive how little it has 
been understood by a large proportion of those 
who have undertaken to lay down rules of exposi- 
tion, and how much it has been involved in ob- 
scurity and error. There are many writers wh^ 
appear, neither to have had any distinct conception 
of the truth, that sentences are continually occur- 
ring which may severally express very different 
senses when ive attend only to the ivords of which 
they are composed, nor, of consequence, any just 
notions of the manner in which the actual mean- 
ing of such sentences is to be determined. Yet 
it is to such sentences that the art of interpre- 
tation is to be applied ; and its purpose is, to 
teach us in what manner their ambiguity may 
be resolved. 



J 51 PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 

We are now, then, prepared to answer the ques- 
tion formerly proposed. Certain passages are ad- 
duced by Trinitarians in support of their opinions. 
We do not deny that there are expressions in some 
of these passages, which, the words alone being 
regarded, will bear a Trinitarian sense. How is it 
to be ascertained whether this sense, or some other, 
was intended by the writer ? 

Now this is a question which, as we have shown, 
is to be determined solely by extrinsic considera- 
tions ; and all those considerations that have been 
brought into view in the former part of this discus- 
sion bear directly upon the point at issue. My 
purpose has been to prove that the Trinitarian doc- 
trines were not taught by Christ and his Apostles. 
If this has been proved, it has been proved that 
they were not taught by them in any particular 
passage. All the considerations that have been 
brought forward apply directly to the interpreta- 
tion of any words that may be adduced; and if 
these considerations are decisive, then it is certain 
that the Trinitarian exposition of every passage of 
the New Testament must be false. Their force can 
be avoided but in one way ; not by proving, posi- 
tively, that certain words will bear a Trinitarian 
meaning, — that is conceded; but by proving, nega- 
tively, that it is impossible these words should be 
used in any other than a Trinitarian meaning,— 
that they admit of but one sense, which, under all 
circumstances, they must be intended to express. 
"But this no man of common information will main- 
tain. If, then, there be not some gross error in the 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 155 

preceding reasonings, the controversy respecting 
the Trinitarian exposition of those passages is de- 
cided. Whatever may be their true sense, the 
Trinitarian exposition must be false. 

But I will now recur to the essential character 
of the Trinitarian doctrines, for the purpose of 
showing, that, though there are words in the New 
Testament which, abstractly considered, will bear 
some one or other Trinitarian sense, yet that this 
sense can be ascribed to them only in violation of 
a fundamental principle of interpretation. 



SECTION VIII. 

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION VIOLATED 
BY TRINITARIAN EXPOSITORS. — NO PROPOSITION CAN BE 
INCOMPREHENSIBLE, IN ITSELF CONSIDERED, FROM THE 
NATURE OF THE IDEAS EXPRESSED BY IT. 

The principle of interpretation to which I refer 
is so constantly present to the mind of every one, 
and is acted upon so unconsciously in reading all 
other books but the Scriptures, that, except in refer- 
ence to them, it is scarcely necessary to announce 
it or advert to it. It has been already mentioned. 
In many cases, as I have said, we at once reject 
the literal meaning of words, and understand them 
as figurative, because if we did not do this they 
would convey some meaning which contradicts 
common sense ; and it would be inconsistent with 
our notions of the writer to suppose him to intend 
such a meaning. Men's minds being constituted 
alike, so that, when a subject is clearly understood, 
what appears an absurdity to one will appear an 
absurdity to another, we do not ascribe an absurd 
meaning to the language of any writer, except 
upon the special consideration of some well-known 
peculiarity of belief, or defect or cloudiness of in- 
tellect. Yet a great part of all language diverted 
in any way from its literal sense ivill bear an ab- 



ERROR CONCERNING LANGUAGE. 157 

surd meaning, that is, admits of being so inter- 
preted when the words alone are regarded. 

We may take as instances of this the examples 
of the use of language quoted in the preceding sec- 
tion. But I will produce a few more passages, 
from which it may appear to those not familiar 
with the subject how absurd or false the literal 
meaning of language often is, and how instantly 
and unconsciously it is rejected upon the principle 
I have stated. I give them without comment, for 
none is required. My purpose is merely to call 
attention to a fact respecting the use of language, 
which, though frequently overlooked, must be ac- 
knowledged as soon as it is pointed out. 

Speaking of the conciliatory measures toward 
the American colonies adopted by the Rocking- 
ham administration just before its dissolution, Mr. 
Burke says : " The question of the repeal [of the 
Stamp Act] was brought on by ministry in the 
committee of this house, in the very instant when 
it was known that more than one court negotia- 
tion was carrying on with the heads of the opposi- 
tion. Everything upon every side was full of 
traps and mines. Earth below shook ; heaven 
above menaced." * 

Speaking of the rapid increase of numbers in 
these colonies, he says : " Such is the strength 
with which population shoots in that part of the 
world, that, state the number as high as we will, 
whilst the dispute continues, the exaggeiation 

* [Speech on American Taxation.] 



158 ON A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR 

ends. Whilst we are discussing any given mag- 
nitude, they are grown to it."* 

" A strong and habitually indulged imagina- 
tion," says Foster, " has incantations to dissolve 
the rigid laws of time and distance, and to place 
a man in something so like the presence of his 
object, that he seems half to possess it; and it is 
hard, while occupying the verge of paradise, to be 
flung far back in order to find or make a path to- 
it, with the slow and toilsome steps of reality." f 

Remarking upon the responsibility of writers of 
fictitious narratives, in regard to the characters 
they delineate, the same author has the following 
passage : " They create a new person ; and in 
sending him into society, they can choose whethei 
his example shall tend to improve or pervert the 
minds that will be compelled to admire him."f 

I will quote a few more sentences, from Young.* 

" The death-bed of the just 

Is it his death-bed ? No ; it is his shrine : 
Behold him there just rising to a god." 

" Shall we this moment gaze on God in man ; 
The next, lose man for ever in the dust?" 

" A Christian dwells, like Uriel, in the sun." 

Speaking of the beauty of the material world, as 
relative to our perceptions, and existing only so far 
as it is perceived by the eye of man : — 

* [Speech on Conciliation with America.] 

t [Essay on the Application of the Epithet Romantic, Letter III.] 
X [On the Aversion of Men of Taste to Evangelical Religion, 
Letter VIII.] 
§ [Night Thoughts, II 629 ; VII. 222, 1354 ; VI. 429.] 



CONCERNING LANGUAGE. 159 

u But for the magic organ's powerful charm, 
Earth were a rude, uncolored chaos still. . . . 
Ours is the cloth, the pencil, and the paint, 
Which Nature's admirable picture draws. . . 
Like Milton's Eve, when gazing on the lake, 
Man makes the matchless image man admires. 
Say then, shall man, his thoughts all sent abroad, . . 
His admiration waste on objects round, 
When Heaven makes him the soul of all he sees 1 " 

Any person in his common reading may find 
numberless similar passages, of which we reject 
without hesitation the verbal meaning, simply be- 
cause it is absurd or evidently false. But this 
principle has not been regarded in the interpreta- 
tion of Scripture. The believer in transubstantia- 
xion contends that we are to understand verbally 
the declaration : u Unless you eat the flesh of the 
Son of Man, and drink his blood, you have not 
life within you."* The sect of the Antinomians 
would have us take to the letter the words of St. 
Paul, as rendered in the Common Version: u But 
to him that worketh not, but believeth on him 
that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for 
righteousness."! And of the believers in the doc- 
trine of Atonement, some contend, that, when the 
Apostle speaks of the church as being " purchased 
by the blood of Christ," or, as they would have it 
read, "by the blood of God," we are to regard the 
blood of the Son as being paid, as it were, to the 
Father to deliver us from his wrath. All the errors 
connected with Christianity have appealed for sup- 
port to such verbal misinterpretations of particular 

* [John vi. 53] t [Romans iv. 5] 

18* 



160 ON A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR 

passages. Hence it has been said, that anything 
may be proved from the Scriptures. And it is 
true, that, if we proceed in so erroneous a method, 
and neglect every fact and principle which ought 
to be attended to in the interpretation of language, 
there is no meaning too false, too absurd^ or too 
ridiculous, to be educed from the words of Scrip- 
ture, or, equally, from those of any popular writ- 
ing. An experiment may be made upon the pas- 
sages just quoted in the preceding paragraphs.* 



* " Quss lex, quod senatus-consultum, quod magistrates edietum, 
quod foedus, aut pactio, quod (ut ad privatas res redeam) testamen- 
tum, quse judicia, aut stipulationes, aut pacti et eonventi formula non 
infirm ari, aut eonvelli potest, si ad verba rem deflectere velimus ; con 
siliura autem eorum, qui scripserunt, et rationem, et auctoritatem 
relinquamus 1 Sermo mehereule et familiar is et quotidianus non 
cohaerebit, si verba inter nos aucupabiraur. Denique imperium do- 
mesticum nullum erit, si servulis hoc nostris concesserimus, ut ad 
verba nobis obediant ; non ad id, quod ex verbis intclligi possit, ob- 
temperent." 

" What law, what decree of the Senate, what ordinance of a magis- 
trate, what treaty or convention, or, to return to private concerns, 
what testament, what judicial decision, what stipulation, what form 
of agreement, may not be invalidated or annulled, if we insist on 
bending the meaning to the words, and neglect the intent, purport, 
and will of the writer? Truly, our familiar and every-day discourse 
would have little coherence, if we lay in wait for each other's words. 
There would be no domestic government, if we allowed our slaves to 
obey our commands in their verbal meaning, and not in that sense in 
which the words are to be understood." 

Cicero, Orat. pro A. Cascina, § 18. 

A late writer, however, to whom I have before adverted, p. 147, Dr. 
Chalmers (in the article there mentioned), contends earnestly that 
the verbal method of interpreting the Scriptures is the true method. 
"The examination of the Scriptures," he says, " is a pure work of 
grammatical analysis. It is an unmixed question of language." 
" We admit of no other instrument than the vocabulary and the lexi- 



CONCERNING LANGUAGE. 161 

It is in the verbal manner spoken of, that the 
passages brought to prove the Trinitarian doctrines 
have been interpreted. But in order to withdraw 
the propositions thus resulting, from the jurisdic- 
tion of reason, they have been called incomprehen- 
sible mysteries. A certain obscurity has thus been 
thrown over the subject, by which some minds are 
perplexed. I will now, therefore, attempt to show, 
what, 1 think, may be shown clearly, that no prop- 
osition can be incomprehensible from the nature of 

con." "The mind and meaning of the author who is translated is 
purely a question of language, and should be decided upon no other 
principles than those of grammar or philology." But this principle 
u has been most glaringly departed from in the case of the Bible ; 

the meaning of its author, instead of being made singly and 

entirely a question of grammar, has been made a question of meta- 
physics, or a question of sentiment : instead of the argument 

resorted to being, Such must be the rendering, from the structure 
of language, and the import and significancy of its phrases ; it has 
been, Such must be the rendering, from the analogy of the faith, the 
reason of the thing, the character of the Divine mind, and the wis- 
dom of all his dispensations." There are Christians "who in addi- 
tion to the word of God talk also of the reason of the thing." " Could 
we only dismiss the uncertain fancies of a daring and presumptuous 
theology, sit down like a school-boy to his task, and look upon the 
study of divinity as a mere work of translation, then we would ex- 
pect the same unanimity among Christians, that we meet with among 
scholars and literati about the system of Epicurus, or philosophy of 
Aristotle." 

The illustration is particularly unhappy, at least so far as regards 
the philosophy of Aristotle. But I do not insist on this, nor on the 
looseness and uncertainty of some of the language which I have 
quoted. The main ideas are sufficiently apparent. We are to come 
to the study of the Scriptures merely with our grammar and lexicon. 
Having done so, let us consider how we shall proceed. Our lexicon 
will exhibit to us ten or twenty different meanings, perhaps, of some 
of the most important words in a sentence. Our grammar, beside 



162 ON A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR 

the ideas expressed; that there can be no meaning 
conveyed in words, which is not perfectly intelligi- 
ble, I do not say by this or that individual, but by 
the human understanding. 

Words are only human instruments for the ex- 
pression of human ideas ; and it is impossible 
that they should express anything else. The 
meaning of words is that idea or aggregate of 
ideas which men have associated with certain 

teaching us the relations of words to each other, will discover to us 
the various and often numerous modifications of meaning, which 
some alteration in the form of a word renders it capable of express- 
ing. If it happen to have an appendix treating of the rhetorical 
figures, we may also learn something from it concerning, the many 
changes of signification to which words are subjected according to 
established modes of speech ; though our knowledge, if derived 
merely from this source, may not be extensive. But as yet we 
are furnished only with objects of choice among a variety of mean- 
ings, without anything to decide us how to choose. We have only 
learned, and that but very imperfectly, what the words may signify; 
our business is to learn what they do signify. Take a sentence, 
which in different relations may be used to express different mean- 
ings with equal propriety, — and such sentences are constantly oc- 
curring, — what assistance will our grammar or lexicon afford, to 
determine in any particular case its actual meaning ? Certainly 
none at all. 

But in the process of interpretation, we are to have recourse to no 
other instruments. We are expressly enjoined, for instance, to ex- 
clude all consideration of the reason of the thing. By this must be 
meant, that we are not to consider what may reasonably be said 
upon any subject ; or, in other words, what a reasonable man, with 
no false opinions, would say concerning it. Let us try, then, how we 
shall succeed in interpreting Scripture, after having excluded this 
and every other extrinsic consideration. St. Luke ascribes these 
words to our Saviour: "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the king- 
dom of God." Shall we exclude all consideration of the reason of 
the thing, and, taking the word poor in its most common and obvious 
sense, understand our Saviour as asserting for a universal truth, that 



CONCERNING LANGUAGE. 1G3 

sounds or letters. They have no other meaning 
than what is given them by men; and this mean- 
ing must be always such as the human under- 
standing is capable of conceiving; for we can 
associate with sounds or letters no idea or ag- 
gregate of ideas which we have not. Ideas, 
therefore, with which the human understanding 
is conversant, are all that can be expressed by 
words. If an angel have faculties of a different 

all men destitute of property are blessed ? But these words, it will 
be said, are explained by the parallel passage in St. Matthew. Ex- 
plained by a parallel passage ! We are, then, very soon obliged to 
have recourse to something beside our grammar and lexicon. But 
how are they explained by the passage in St. Matthew 1 " Blessed 
are the poor in spirit." Without taking any extrinsic consideration 
into view, but confining ourselves to the mere words before us, in 
which of the many meanings of the word spirit shall we here under- 
stand it? Shall we receive it in a sense which occurs repeatedly 
in the New Testament, according to which it denotes the temper 
and virtues of a Christian, and understand the words as meaning : 
" Blessed are they who are poor in the temper and virtues of a Chris- 
tian " 1 But leaving these difficult passages, he who chooses to put 
out of view the reason of the thing, and all those other circumstances 
which ought to determine our judgment, may proceed with his gram- 
mar and lexicon to the next beatitude of our Saviour, and then to the 
next ; and then he may open at random upon any passage of the 
New Testament, till he has satisfied himself respecting the practica- 
bility of his method. 

If the opinions on which I have remarked were the extravagances 
of an individual writer alone, so long a notice of them would hardly 
be justifiable. But the assertions, I cannot say the arguments, of 
Dr. Chalmers, are intended to maintain a system of interpretation in 
which the false doctrines that have been connected with Christianity 
have found their main support. It is to be observed, however, that 
the verbal method of interpretation is, in fact, principally confined to 
passages brought in proof of those doctrines, and is abandoned in re- 
gard to other portions of Scripture, to which its application would 
produce some unsanctioned error or absurdity. 



164 ON A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR 

nature from those which we possess, he can make 
no use of our language to convey to our minds 
the results of their exercise. If any being have 
more senses than we have, he can find no words 
of ours to express to us his new perceptions. It 
being impossible, therefore, that words should be 
employed to denote anything but human ideas ; 
whenever they have a meaning, this meaning, 
though liable to be mistaken, must in its own 
nature be capable of being fully understood. 

To talk of an incomprehensible meaning, if we 
use the word " incomprehensible " in a strict sense, 
is to employ terms which in themselves express an 
absurdity. It is the same sort of language, as if 
we were to speak of an invisible illumination. 
The meaning of a sentence is the ideas which it 
is adapted to convey to the mind of him who reads 
or hears it. But if it be capable of conveying any 
ideas, that is, if it have any meaning, it is merely 
stating the same fact in other terms, to say that 
those ideas are capable of being received and 
understood. 

No one, indeed, will deny, that there are many 
truths incomprehensible by us ; which are above 
reason, or, in other words, which are wholly out 
of the grasp of our present faculties. But these 
truths cannot be expressed in human language. 
Nor, while our faculties remain what they are, 
can they be in any way revealed to us. To re- 
veal is to make known. But what cannot be com- 
prehended cannot be made known, and therefore 
cannot be revealed. 



CONCERNING LANGUAGE. 165 

This very plain subject has been obscured by a 
oose and ambiguous use of language. It is said, 
that we believe truths which we do not com- 
prehend ; — that we believe that the grass grows ; 
but do not know how it grows; — that we believe 
that some things are infinite ; but that we do not 
comprehend infinity; — that we believe that God 
knows all things; but that we cannot form a 
conception of omniscience. Let us examine these 
propositions. The grass grows : do we not know 
what we mean when we use these words? It 
is as intelligible a proposition as can be stated. 
We affirm, and we intend nothing more than to 
affirm, that certain well-known, sensible phenom- 
ena take place. It is true that we do not know 
how it grows, that is to say, we do not know 
the proximate causes of its growth; and it is 
equally true, that we affirm nothing about those 
causes in the proposition stated. Our affirmation 
does not extend beyond our knowledge. The fact 
that there are many phenomena of which we can- 
not assign the causes, does not tend to prove that, 
when we affirm those phenomena to exist, we utter 
incomprehensible propositions. 

But we say of many things, that they are or may 
be infinite ; that space and duration are infinite ; 
that the attributes of God are infinite ; that our 
own existence will be infinite or without termina- 
tion ; and we do not understand what is meant by 
infinity; we do not comprehend these truths. I 
answer, that if we do not understand those propo- 
sitions, — it they are unintelligible, — it is very idle 



166 ON a FUNDAMENTAL ERROR 

to make them. We do not comprehend infinity 
in itself considered ; but we comprehend our own 
idea of infinity, with the knowledge, as in very 
many other cases, that it is an inadequate idea. 
Our ideas of things infinite are, as that word im- 
plies,* essentially negative ideas. They consist in 
the conception of certain things, accompanied with 
the belief of the absence of all limit or termination. 
We not only have an idea of infinity, but it is im- 
possible we should not have. The very constitu- 
tion of our minds is such that we cannot, for in- 
stance, imagine a period when time began, or when 
it may end. It is true that we are unable to con- 
ceive of infinity positively, we do not understand 
all its nature ; and we can reason about it there- 
fore but very partially. It belongs to the class of 
inadequate ideas, which includes far the greater 
portion of all our ideas; and the propositions re- 
lating to it are no more unintelligible than the 
propositions which relate to other ideas of this 
class. I affirm, that the same person who called 
on me to-day visited me yesterday ; and there is 
no one, I think, who will maintain that this is an 
incomprehensible proposition. Yet there are few 
who will pretend to have a perfectly adequate 
idea of identity, the notion of which is involved 
in the proposition just stated ; and many ques- 
tions may be raised respecting this subject, as 
well as respecting infinity, by which most minds 
would be perplexed. I say that the sun is the 

• From the Latin in negative, and Jwitus. 



CONCERNING LANGUAGE. 167 

principal source of light and heat ; and ihe prop- 
osition is perfectly intelligible. But I have not 
an adequate idea of the sun; there are many 
things concerning it, as well as concerning in- 
finity, which I can neither affirm nor deny. ] 
cannot say, for instance, whether, as some have 
imagined, it be adapted to the support of animals 
and vegetables, in any respect similar to those 
which exist upon the earth. Our idea of infinity 
differs from most other ideas of the class to which 
I have referred it, only in this respect, — that its in- 
adequacy is occasioned by the fact, that the sub- 
ject is beyond the grasp of our faculties ; while the 
inadequacy of most other ideas seems to arise 
from the deficiency of our means of information. 
But this is a difference which does not in any de- 
gree affect the nature of the propositions made 
concerning it, so as to distinguish them from other 
propositions relating to inadequate ideas. 

But it will be said, that we have no conception 
of omniscience; and yet that we make proposi- 
tions concerning it, which have a meaning and 
a very important one. I answer, that they have 
not only an important, but a perfectly intelligible 
meaning; and that this subject is of a similar 
kind to many others, of the nature and relations 
of which the understanding has distinct ideas, 
(hough they are subjects of which the imagina- 
tion cannot form distinct conceptions. Fix on any 
particular object of knowledge, and I can conceive, 
in every sense of the word, that this should be 
known to God. But when these objects are in- 

19 



168 ON A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR 

finite, or when they are multiplied beyond very 
narrow limits, my imagination fails and i& al- 
together confounded. But the same is the case 
with regard to much humbler subjects. No ideas 
can be more definite, considered as objects of the 
understanding, than those which relate to number 
and quantity; yet it is principally collective and 
aggregate ideas involving the notion of great num- 
bers or vast quantity, that the imagination is thus 
unable to embrace. When I am told that there 
are more than six hundred millions of inhabitants 
upon the earth, I understand the proposition as 
perfectly, as when I am told that there are six indi- 
viduals in a certain room. But of the latter my 
imagination can form a distinct conception, of the 
former it cannot. I have no images in my mind 
which correspond in any considerable degree to 
the immense number of individuals mentioned ; 
or to that vast mass of matter with all its vari- 
ous modifications which constitutes the earth. 
Still less can one form distinct images of what 
astronomy has made known to us respecting the 
universe. But who will pretend that man cannot 
comprehend the truths which man has discovered ? 
We need not, however, go so far for examples. I 
can form no image of a figure with twenty equal 
sides, — none which shall distinguish it from a 
similar figure of nineteen or twenty-one. But I 
am surely able to comprehend propositions re- 
specting such a figure with twenty sides ; and I 
have a very clear idea of it as an object of the 
understanding. The fact therefore that our imagi- 



CONCERNING LANGUAGE. 169 

nations cannot conceive of omniscience, has no 
bearing to prove that our reason cannot compre- 
hend the propositions which we make concern- 
ing it. When indeed we regard omniscience as 
infinite knowledge, then our ideas respecting it, 
however clear, must be inadequate. Bu^ as I 
have just shown, propositions relating to inade- 
quate ideas may be altogether intelligible. 

Language then cannot be formed into proposi- 
tions having a meaning, which meaning is not, in 
itself considered, fully to be comprehended. This 
is merely saying, in other terms, that the human 
mind is capable of comprehending the ideas of 
the human mind, for no other ideas are associated 
with, or can be expressed by, language. What 
then is the character of those propositionr, said to 
be derived from the Scriptures, which are called 
incomprehensible ; and which, it is affirmed, ex- 
press mysteries above human reason ? I answer, 
that so far as they have a meaning, they are intel- 
ligible ; and that many of them are, in fact, prop- 
ositions which are perfectly intelligible. When 
I am told that the same being is both God and 
man, I recognize, as I have before said,* a very 
intelligible, though a very absurd proposition, that 
is, I know well all the senses which the words ad- 
mit. When it is affirmed that " the Father is God, 
and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God ; 
and yet there are not three Gods, but one God" ; 
no words can more clearly convey any meaning, 

* See pp. 57, 58. 



L70 ON A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR 

than those propositions express the meaning, that 
there are three existences of whom the attributes 
of God may be predicated, and yet that there :s 
only one existence of whom the attributes of God 
may be predicated. But this is not an incomore- 
hensible mystery ; it is plain nonsense. 

It seems to me in one respect a most futile, and 
in another a most irreverent, sort of discussion, to 
inquire, what would be, or what ought to be, our 
state of mind, if such propositions were found 
in revelation ; or had been taught us by any being 
performing miracles in evidence of his mission 
from God. It is a thing impossible, and not to 
be imagined. When we have once settled the 
real nature of those propositions, all controversy 
about their making a part of Christianity is at 
an end ; unless, indeed, we urge this controversy, 
not as Christians, but as unbelievers. 

The propositions, then, of which we speak, are 
altogether intelligible, and are not mysteries. It 
is only in violation of that fundamental rule of 
criticism, which continually prevents us from mis- 
understanding the words of other books in an 
irrational or absurd meaning, that any support 
has been found for them in the writings of the 
New Testament. These writings have been ex- 
plained in a manner, in which if any other work 
were explained, we should think that its author 
was regarded by his expositor as destitute of com- 
mon sense ; unless we ascribed this character to 
the expositor himself. It may give us some idea 
of the extent to which the misinterpretation of the 



CONCERNING LANGUAGE. 17l 

Scriptures t.as been carried, and of the degree to 
which the religion of Christians has been corrupted, 
to recollect that the creed attributed to Athana- 
sius, but which is in fact a spurious work of some 
unknown author, which Athanasius himself would 
have regarded with abhorrence, — a creed which 
seems to have been formed in a delirium of folly, 
— was for ages the professed faith of the whole 
Western Church ; and is still the professed faith 
of a great portion of Protestants. 

I have said, " the professed faith " ; for although 
the propositions which it embodies, considered in 
themselves, may have one or more distinct mean- 
ings, they have no meaning in the mind of him 
who proposes them as religious truths. The words 
cannot be understood in any sense which he will 
acknowledge to be what he intends to express. 
He may have obscure, unsettled, and irrational 
notions, which appear to him to answer in some 
sort to the proposition affirmed ;"but he can have 
no belief that really corresponds to it ; for though 
men may, and often do, believe contradictory prop- 
ositions which they have never compared to- 
gether, yet no man can believe an obvious con- 
tradiction. While he is maintaining these prop- 
ositions, he may, perhaps, hold a doctrine which 
might properly be expressed in different words ; 
and which does not in fact differ from the doc- 
trine of those to whom he fancies himself most 
opposed. But whatever he does in fact believe, 
that he may express distinctly and fully, in words 
which carry no contradiction upon their face. The 

19* 



172 ON A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR 

obscurity of the subject cannot be made a plea for 
the want of the utmost propriety and perspicuity 
of language ; for it is not the subject which he is 
required to explain, but only his own belief con- 
cerning it. But what one man believes may be 
made perfectly intelligible to another of equal 
capacity and information. 

Archbishop Tillotson said of the Athanasian 
creed, that he wished the Church of England "were 
well rid of it." * There are other parts of her ser- 
vice which it is even more desirable that church 
Bhould be well rid of. Familiarity may reconcile 
us to what is most offensive. But let us imagine 
it as possible that one should be ignorant of the 
errors prevailing among Christians, and, at the 
same time, penetrated with just conceptions of 
the Divinity. With what inexpressible astonish- 
ment and horror would he listen for the first time 
to an assembly of Christian worshippers, thus ad- 
dressing their God : — 

" By the mystery of thy holy incarnation, by thy 
holy nativity and circumcision, by thy baptism, 
fasting, and temptation, — Good Lord, deliver us. 

" By thine agony and bloody sweat, by thy cross 
and passion, by thy precious death and burial, by 
thy glorious resurrection and ascension, .... 
Good Lord, deliver us." 

How many join in these petitions with an intel- 
ligent belief of the propositions implied in them ? 

* In a letter to Bishop Burnet, about a month before Tillotson's 
death. See Birch's Life of Tillotson. 



CONCERTING LANGUAGE. 173 

I answer, Not one; for when understood, they 
zannot be believed. How many fancy that they 
believe them, having some obscure notions, which 
they think answer to what is intended? Certainly 
not a majority of those listeners who have at all 
exercised their reason upon the subject. But the 
doctrines implied are not doctrines of the Church 
of England alone. Other churches and sects are 
equally responsible for their promulgation. And 
what must we think of the public sanction thus 
given to such representations of God and Chris- 
tianity ? What, in the present state of the world, 
will be the effect upon the religious sentiments 
of men, if absurdities so revolting are present- 
ed to their minds as essential doctrines of our 
faith ? If there be any honor due to God, if Chris- 
tianity be not a mere vulgar superstition, if there 
be any worth in religion, if any respect is to be 
paid to that reason which God gave us when he 
formed us in his own likeness, if any concern is 
to be felt for man who has been insulted and de- 
graded, it is a matter of the most serious impor- 
tance, that this solemn mockery of all that is most 
venerable, and most essential to human happiness, 
should cease. 



SECTION IX. 

EXPLANATIONS OF PARTICULAR PASSAGES OF THE NEW 
TESTAMENT, ADDUCED BY TRINITARIANS. 

I will now proceed to examine the principal 
passages urged by Trinitarians. I do this, not 
chiefly for the purpose of showing that they do 
not support their doctrines, — that point, I trust, 
is already settled, — but in order to assist those 
who may wish to attain a correct notion of their 
meaning, and particularly such as are familiar only 
with the Trinitarian application of them. Most of 
them present more or less difficulty to a modern 
reader ; otherwise they could not, with any appear- 
ance of reason, have been perverted to the support 
of such doctrines ; and one may reasonably desire 
to know how they are probably to be understood. 

But it is to be remarked, that the case is the same 
with some of these as with many other passages in 
the New Testament. We may confidently reject a 
particular sense, as not having been intended by the 
speaker or writer, while, at the same time, we doubt 
whether we have ascertained his true meaning. 
Of different expositions we may sometimes hesi- 
tate which to prefer, or question whether any one 
be correct, though no other that seems preferable 
occur to us. In the study of ancient authors, we 
must often content ourselves with an approxima- 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 175 

tion to the thoughts intended to be expressed; and 
for the most part have not a full and clear view of 
all that was present to the mind of the writer. It 
would require a mastery which none can attain over 
the whole power of an ancient language as used 
by different individuals, and an intimacy which 
none can acquire with all the circumstances af- 
fecting the conceptions and feelings of an ancient 
writer and his contemporaries, to determine in 
every case the exact force and bearing of his words. 
Our knowledge is not unfrequently so imperfect, 
that we are unable fully to estimate the relative 
importance of the different considerations which 
may incline us to adopt one meaning or another. 
The explanations, therefore, of some of the pas- 
sages to be examined may be more or less prob- 
able or accurate, without in any degree affecting 
the force of the preceding arguments. However 
much those who reject the Trinitarian exposition 
of certain words may differ among themselves as 
to their true meaning ; there is, in consequence, as 
little reason for assenting to the Trinitarian ex- 
position, as is furnished by the differences among 
Protestants for adopting the creed of the Church 
of Rome, or the differences among Christians for 
becoming an unbeliever. An equal diversity of 
opinion has existed among interpreters concerning 
the meaning of many passages not particularly 
obnoxious to controversy. Nor is this variety of 
explanation to be supposed peculiar to the New 
Testament. In proportion to the attention which 
has been paid to the ancient philosophers, to Plato 



176 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

and Aristotle, for example, there has been a similar 
want of agreement concerning their doctrines and 
sentiments. It may be worth while to illustrate 
what has been said, and to show the difficulty that 
may exist in ascertaining the meaning of words, 
even when the discussion excites no prejudice or 
party feeling, by attending to a few of the first 
declarations of our Saviour, which it is probable 
many readers pass over with scarcely a question 
as to their sense. 

" Reform ; for the kingdom of Heaven is at 
hand."* The Common Version, instead of " Re- 
form," has " Repent." To correct this error, noth- 
ing more is necessary than a knowledge of the 
proper sense of the original word. But what was 
intended by the words " kingdom of Heaven," as 
used by Christ? and how were they understood by 
the Jews, his contemporaries, when first uttered? 
Both questions are important. The Jews had ex- 
pected that their Messiah would come to establish 
a temporal kingdom ; and the idea of a temporal 
kingdom was suggested to their minds by those 
words when they first heard them. The fact con- 
cerning their expectations is ascertained by a pro- 
cess of investigation and reasoning. But such a 
kingdom was not intended by our Saviour. Under 
common circumstances, we endeavor to use words 
in that sense in which they will at once be under- 
stood by our hearers. Bat we learn from an ex- 
amination of the Gospels, that Christ employed 

* Matthew iv. 17. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 177 

terms, familiar to his hearers, in new senses, and 
left his meaning to be gradually ascertained and 
settled, as the minds of his disciples might open to 
the truth. What then was his meaning? This is 
a question to which, I think, many readers may 
find it more difficult to return a clear and precise 
answer, than it appears to be at first thought. He 
who will look in^o the commentators may perceive 
how indefinitely and inaccurately it is liable to be 
understood. For myself, I conceive him to have 
intended by the " kingdom of Heaven," or, in other 
words, " the kingdom of God," that state of things 
in which men should recognize the authority of 
God as the supreme lawgiver, and submit them- 
selves to his laws, as human subjects to those of a 
human government. This I suppose to be the 
radical idea of the term as used by him, an idea 
which is to be regarded under various relations, is 
united with different accessory thoughts, and sug- 
gests different associations, according to the vari- 
ous connections in which it is presented.* 

Ci Blessed are the poor in spirit ; for theirs is the 
kingdom of Heaven," f — that is, they will enjoy 
the blessings which God confers upon the subjects 
of his kingdom, upon those who obey his laws. 
But are they blessed for what they are, or for the 
peculiar advantages which they enjoy for becom- 
ing what they ought to be ? Is the blessing abso- 
lute and universal ? Or does it refer only to the 

* [See also the note on Matthew xiii. 11, in the author's Notes on 
the Gospels.] 
t Matthew v. 3. 



178 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

favorable circumstances of the class spoken of? 
Or is it confined to some particular individuals of 
that class? That these are not idle questions, 
may appear from the words which St. Luke as- 
cribes to Christ: "Blessed are you poor," the quali- 
fication "in spirit" being omitted; "for yours is 
the kingdom of Heaven";* which we cannot un- 
derstand as referring without exception to the 
whole class of the poor. The words given by St. 
Matthew have been by some critics so constructed 
as to correspond to those of St. Luke.f Thus 
Wetstein understands them as addressed particu- 
larly to Christ's poor disciples, and as meaning, 
Blessed in the view of the Spirit, Blessed in the 
sight of God, are the poor, that is, you poor. It 
would detain us too long, to enter into the reasons 
for which, as it seems to me, this interpretation is 
to be rejected. Let us attend, then, to some other 
expositions. Many commentators of the Romish 
Church understand by the "poor in spirit" those 
who voluntarily submit to poverty. Among Prot- 
estants, Whitby and others understand " men of a 
truly humble and lowly spirit." Paley, apparently 
led astray by the sound of the words in the Com- 
mon Version, supposes our Saviour to declare that 
" the poor-spirited are blessed " ; and has, in con- 
sequence, misrepresented the character of Chris- 
tian, that is, of true morality.^ We may, with 
some reason, suppose Christ to have meant, that, 

* Luke vi. 20. 

t By connecting tS 7rvevfjLciTi with fjcaicdpioi. 

I See his Evidences of Christianity, Part II. Ch. 2 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 179 

in the existing circumstances of the Jews, the poor 
were far more likely than the rich to have the dis- 
positions which would lead them to become his 
followers ; and that in consequence he pronounced 
those blessed who had the spirit of the poor. But 
I think it most probable that his meaning was still 
different. The word used in the original is to be 
distinguished from that which denotes simply the 
want of wealth. It implies destitution, and was 
used to denote such as lived by charity. Looking 
around him upon the multitude, he saw perhaps 
many who had no earthly goods ; and there stood 
near him the few disciples who had at that time 
left all to follow him. Borrowing, as was usual 
with him, a figure from present objects, he speaks 
of that poverty which is not in external circum- 
stances, but the poverty of the mind, the destitu- 
tion felt within. The meaning of his words, I 
believe, was, Blessed are such as feel that they are 
destitute of all things ; and he referred to such as, 
free from the high pretensions and spiritual pride 
of the generality of the Jews, might feel that as 
Jews they had no claims upon God, might recog- 
nize their own deficiencies in goodness, and be 
sensible how much was wanting to their true hap- 
piness. 

Let us go on a little further. M Blessed are the 
mourners; for they will be comforted."* Does this 
intend those who deny themselves the blessings of 
life and endure voluntary penance, as some Cath- 



* Matthew v. 4. 
20 



180 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

olics explain the passage ? You will say not. 
Does it mean those who mourn for their sins, as 
many Protestant commentators tell us? I think 
otherwise. The purpose of our Saviour was, I be- 
lieve, simply to announce that his religion brought 
blessed consolation to all who mourned. 

" Blessed are the meek ; for they shall inherit 
the earth." So the next words are rendered in the 
Common Version. I will not go over the different 
meanings that have been assigned to them, but 
will only ask my reader, if he have not particu- 
larly attended to the subject, in what sense he 
has understood them ? The rendering should be, 
66 Blessed are the mild, for they will inherit the 
land"; that is, "the promised land." The pas- 
sage cannot be understood without attention to 
the conceptions of the Jews. They believed, that, 
if they obeyed God, they should remain in posses- 
sion of "the promised land"; if they disobeyed 
him, that they would be removed from it, and 
scattered among other nations. Hence "the in- 
heriting of the land " was in their minds but an- 
other name for the enjoying of God's favor. In 
this associated and figurative sense the terms 
were used by Christ. His meaning was, literally, 
Blessed are the mild, for they will enjoy the favor 
of God. In the Psalm (xxxvii. 11) from which he 
borrowed the words, they are, probably, to be un- 
derstood literally. 

These examples may serve in some measure to 
show, that it is not always easy to determine the 
meaning even of passages which may seem at first 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 181 

new to present little difficulty. If, therefore, we 
may hesitate about the true sense of those quoted 
by Trinitarians, this circumstance will afford no 
ground for hesitation in rejecting the Trinitarian 
sense. We must not assign an absurd meaning 
to a passage, because we are unable to satisfy our- 
selves about the meaning intended. He would 
reason very ill, who, because he was unable to 
satisfy himself as to what was meant by our 
Saviour when he spoke of eating his flesh and 
drinking his blood, should, on that account, adopt 
the Roman Catholic exposition of his words. 

In what follows, I shall confine my remarks to 
passages of the New Testament. If the doctrines 
of Trinitarians were not taught by Christ and his 
Apostles, it would be a superfluous labor to ex- 
amine the passages of the Old Testament which 
have been represented as containing indications of 
them.* There are arguments so futile that one 
may be excused from remarking upon them. At 
the present day, it can hardly be necessary to 
prove that the writer of the first chapters of Gene- 
sis was not a Trinitarian ; or that there is no evi- 



* [" The Old Testament," says Professor Stuart, " does but ob- 
scurely (if at all) reveal the doctrine of a Trinity On the sup- 
position that has been made, namely, that the full development of 
Trinity was not made, and could not be made, until the time of the 
Saviour's incarnation, it is easy to see why nothing more than pre- 
paratory hints should be found in the Old Testament respecting it. 
He who finds more than these there, has reason, so far as I can see, 
to apprehend that his speculations in theology have stronger hold 
upon him than the principles of philology." — Biblical Repository foi 
July, 1835, pp. 105-108.] 



182 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 

dence for the doctrine in the words of Isaiah 
(vi, 3), " Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts"; 
though, according to Dr. William Lowth, a stand- 
ard commentator on the Prophets, " the Christian 
Church hath always thought that the doctrine of 
the blessed Trinity was implied in this repetition.'* 
Another expositor of equal note, Bishop Patrick, 
tells us, that " many of the ancient Fathers think 
there is a plain intimation of the Trinity in these 
words, ' The Lord our God is one Lord ' " ; yet it 
cannot be expected that one should go into an ex- 
planation of this proposition, for the sake of re- 
moving any difficulty in comprehending it. The 
passage of the Old Testament which is most re- 
lied upon by Trinitarians is found in Isaiah ix. 6. 
It has been often explained. There is, I think, no 
evidence that it relates to Christ ; and if it do, the 
common version of it is incorrect. It may be thus 
rendered : — 

" For unto us a child is born, 
Unto us a son is given ; 

And the government shall be upon his shoulder; 
And he shall be called 
Wonderful, counsellor, mighty potentate, 
Everlasting father, prince of peace." * 

* I quote the translation given by the Rev. George R. Noyes in 
his Sermon upon Isaiah ix. 6, lately published, and refer to the same 
discourse for its explanation and defence. I do so the more readily, 
as it gives me an opportunity of expressing my respect for that able 
and accurate scholar, and my strong interest in those labors by which 
he is contributing so much toward a better understanding of the 
Hebrew Scriptures. 

[The sermon here referred to was republished in No. 78 of the 
Tracts of the American Unitarian Association. See also, on this 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 183 

I proceed, then, to remark upon the principal 
passages adduced by Trinitarians professedly from 
the New Testament in support of their doctrines ; 
and in doing so shall distribute them into several 
different classes, according to the different errors 
which have led to their misuse. The sources of 
misinterpretation and mistake will thus appear, 
and in regard to the texts of less importance which 
I shall omit to notice, it will in general be easy to 
determine to what head they are to be referred, and 
in what manner understood. 



CLASS I. 



To the first class we may refer Interpolated and 
Corrupted Passages. Such are the following. 

passage, the remarks of the Rev. Dr. Noyes in the Christian Exami- 
ner for January, 1836, Vol. XIX. pp. 292-295. The article just 
cited examines the question, " Whether the Deity of the Messiah be 
a doctrine of the Old Testament," with particular reference to the 
statements and reasonings of Hengstenberg, in his Christology. In 
connection with two others by*which it was followed, on the " Mean- 
ing of the Title Angel of Jehovah, as used in Scripture," and " The 
Angel of Jehovah mentioned in the Old Testament, not identical with 
the Messiah," (see the Christian Examiner for May and July, 1836,) 
it presents, probably, the ablest and most satisfactory discussion of 
the subject of which it treats that is to be found in the English lan- 
guage. — It may be mentioned, that the translation given above, 
" mighty potentate," instead )f " the mighty God," as in the Common 
Version, is supported, substantially, by the authority of Luther, 
Gesenius, De Wette, and Maurer.] 
20* 



184 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Acts xx. 28. Here in the Common Version, we 
find these words : " To feed the church of God, 
which he hath purchased with his own blood." 
Instead of " the church of God," the true reading 
is " the church of the Lord." * 

1 Timo.thy iii. 16. " God was manifested in the 
flesh." The reading 0eo? ( God) is spurious ; but 
it has been doubted whether we should read 6? 
(vjho or he who) or o (which). 

1 John v. 7. The famous text of the three heav- 
enly witnesses.^ The value that has been formerly 
attached to this passage, though unquestionably 

* [Among the critics and commentators who regard this as the 
genuine or as the most probable reading, may be mentioned the* 
names of Grotius, Wetstein, Michaelis (Anmerk. in loc), Bp. Marsh, 
Griesbach, Schott, Heinrichs, Rosenmuller, Kuinoel, Lacbmann, Te- 
schendorf, Meyer, De Wette, Olshausen, Baumgarten, Adam Clarke, 
John Pye Smith, Stuart (Bibl. Repos. for April, 1838, p. 315), Barnes, 
Hackett, Davidson, Tregelles.] 

t [This text is generally referred to, for conciseness, as " 1 John 
v. 7," though in fact the spurious words form a part of the 7th and 
8th verses. It would hardly be worth while to notice this, had not 
some who have written on the subject been so ignorant as to argue 
the genuineness of the seventh verse from the assumed genuineness 
of the first part of the eighth ; though the latter, equally with the 
spurious portion of the former, is wanting in all known Greek manu- 
scripts written before the invention of printing, in all the ancient ver- 
sions but the Latin Vulgate, and even in the oldest manuscripts of 
that ; is quoted by no ancient Greek Father, and by no Latin Father 
before the latter part of the fifth century. The following are the 
verses in question, as translated in the Common Version, the spu- 
rious portion being enclosed in marks of parenthesis : — 

"For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the 
Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and these three are one. 8. And there 
are three that bear witness in earth), the spirit, and the water, and 
the blood : and these three agree in one."] 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 185 

interpolated, may be estimated from the obstinacy 
with which it has been contended for, from its still 
retaining its place as genuine in the editions of 
the Common Version, and even in editions of the 
original professedly formed on the text of Gries- 
bach, from the lingering glances cast toward it by 
such writers as Bishop Middleton, and from the 
pertinacity with which the more ignorant or big- 
oted class of controversialists continue to quote 
and even defend it. 

After all that has been written concerning these 
texts, no one of them requires particular notice ex- 
cept that from the First Epistle to Timothy. Of 
this the true reading and proper explanation are 
both doubtful. In respect to the reading, the 
question is, as I have mentioned, between o? {who 
or he who) and o {which). Griesbach gives the 
preference to the former, but it has been shown, 1 
think, that he is incorrect in the citation of his au- 
thorities.* The original reading, I believe to have 

* See Laurence's Remarks upon Griesbach's Classification 5f Man 
uscripts, pp. 71-83. According to Griesbach, of the Versions (which 
as regards this text afford by far the most important evidence to be 
adduced), the Arabic of the Polyglot, and the Slavonic, alone sup- 
port the reading 0eos ; in all the others, a pronoun is used answering 
to os or to o. That is to say, the Coptic, the Sahidic, and the Phi- 
loxenian Syriac in its margin, express the pronoun os ; the Vulgate, 
and the older Latin versions, o, quod; and the Peshito or vulgar Syri- 
ac, the Philoxenian Syriac in its text, the Erpenian Arabic, the JEthi- 
opic, and the Armenian, use a pronoun which may be translated in- 
differently " who ; " or " which." 

But according to Dr. Laurence, whose statements I see no reason 
to distrust, " the Coptic, the Sahidic, and the Philoxenian versions do 
not necessarily read os, but most probably o," and " the Peshito or 



186 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

been o (which). For this the external evidence, 
when fairly adjusted, seems greatly to preponder- 
ate; and it may have been altered by transcribers 
first into o? ? and afterwards into fc)eo?, in conse- 
quence of the theological interpretation of the pas- 
sage, according to which the mystery spoken of 
was Christ, — an interpretation that appears to 

vulgar Syriac, the Erpenian Arabic, and the iEthiopic, do not indif- 
ferently read os or o, but indisputably o." " The Armenian reads 
neither o$ nor o, but, in conjunction with the Byzantine text, Geos." 
Of all these versions, therefore, Griesbach's account is incorrect ; and 
the number and importance of those which favor the reading o, taken 
in connection with the fact of its having been, from the first, the read- 
ing of the whole Western Church, produce a preponderating weight 
of evidence in its favor. 

In regard to the Philoxenian version, Dr. Laurence, as may appear 
from what is quoted, expresses himself with some obscurity. But I 
presume his opinion was, that both in the text and in the margin it 
probably reads o. See White's note in his edition of this version. 

[Later investigations have shown that the statements of Dr. Lau- 
rence here relied on are in several respects erroneous. But before 
pointing out their inaccuracy, it maybe well, for the better understand- 
ing of the subject, to mention the dates generally assigned by schol- 
ars to the ancient versions which contain this passage. The Old 
Latin or Italic, and the Peshito Syriac, are supposed to have been 
made in the second century ; the Coptic and Sahidic, in the third, or 
the latter part of the second ; the iEthiopic, Gothic, and Latin Vul- 
gate, in the fourth ; the Armenian, in the fifth ; the Philoxenian or 
Harclean Syriac was completed A. D. 508, and revised A. D. 616. 
Later versions are the Georgian, of the sixth century, but since al- 
tered from the Slavonic, made in the ninth ; and the Arabic versions, 
one edited by Erpenius, supposed to be made from the Syriac, an- 
other published in the Paris and London Polyglots, made from the 
Greek, — both of uncertain date and very little value, — and still an- 
other of the ninth century, made from the Greek at Emesa in Syria 
by one Daniel Philentolos, a manuscript of which is preserved in the 
Vatican Library. 

In regard to the reading of the present passage in these versions, 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 187 

have been given it at an early period. But the 
passage, I believe, has no reference to Christ per ■ 
sonally. 

The words translated " mystery of godliness," as 
if purposely to obscure the sense, should be ren- 
dered " the new doctrine of piety," or " concerning 
piety " ; and in order to avoid an awkward collo- 

the following is believed to be a correct account of the facts which 
may now be considered as established. The Old Latin or Italic ver- 
sion, and the Latin Vulgate, read quod, corresponding to o, which ; — 
the Gothic, as edited by Gabelentz and Loebe, has the masculine rela- 
tive, answering to 6s, who, though the word corresponding to fivaTrj- 
piov, runa, is feminine ; — the Peshito Syriac, the Coptic, the Sahidic, 
the iEthiopic, the Armenian, the Philoxenian Syriac both in the text 
and in the margin, the Erpenian Arabic, and the Arabic of Philen- 
tolos (see Hug's Introd. to the N. T., § 107, 3d ed), use a pronoun 
which may here be indifferently translated who or which ; — the Arabic 
of the Polyglot, the Slavonic, and the Georgian, support the reading 
Geo?, God. In most of the ambiguous versions, the relative pronoun 
has the same form for all the genders ; in the Coptic and Sahidic it 
is masculine, but the word answering to nvo~Tf]piov being also mascu- 
line, we have no means of determining whether the translators had 
before them os or o. In respect to the Armenian version, the Eclectic 
Review for January 1831, p. 48, gives a quotation, apparently from 
a later edition of Dr. Laurence's Essay, according to which he no 
longer claims it as supporting the reading Oeos, but leaves its testi- 
mony doubtful. The Eclectic Reviewer himself, Dr. Henderson, and 
Dr. Tregelles, for whom a special collation of Zohrab's edition of this 
version has been made by a competent scholar, represent it as read- 
ing a pronoun equivalent to either os or o, as stated above. As to 
«!he Philoxenian Syriac, see the note of White, referred to by Mr. 
Norton. 

The evidence of the ancient versions is particularly important in 
regard to this passage, on account of the slight difference between 
the three readings as written in the ancient Greek manuscripts. In 
the uncial or more ancient manuscripts, Qeos, os, and o were writ- 
ten nearly as follows : ec, OC, O. The change from one of these 
readings to another could therefore be much more easily made in the 



188 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

cation of words in English, we may connect the 
epithet " great" with th3 substantives "pillar and 
foundation " ; an arrangement which, though con- 
trary to the construction of the original, sufficiently 
expresses the sense. The following rendering, then, 
I believe, gives the meaning of the Apostle. 

" I thus write to you, hoping to come to you 

Greek manuscripts than in those of the ancient versions. The more 
important of these versions represent the text of manuscripts far 
older, probably, than any that have come down to us. They repre- 
sent, moreover, the text of manuscripts found in countries widely sep- 
arated from each other. Their testimony has therefore not only the 
weight of the highest antiquity, but is far more independent, than 
dhat of the great mass of modern manuscripts. A large majority of 
these were written in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, or later, 
within the narrow limits of the patriarchate of Constantinople, and 
under influences which tended to produce a uniformity of text. (See 
Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. I., Additional Note A, 
pp. xxx.-xxxii.) In many passages the reading which the great 
body of them present differs from that which is proved to be genu- 
ine by the agreement of the most ancient witnesses combined with 
internal evidence. It is accordingly a well-established principle of 
criticism, to use the words of Tregelles, that "the mass of recent 
documents possesses no determining voice, in a question as to what 
we should receive as genuine readings." When, therefore, we find 
that the evidence of the nine oldest versions in favor of a relative 
pronoun as the original reading in this passage is confirmed by the 
Jive oldest and best manuscripts which we possess (the Alexandrine, 
Ephrem, Augian, and Boernerian reading 09, the Clermont 5), and 
also by the earliest Fathers to whose testimony we can appeal with any 
confidence, we can have little doubt that the reading Qeos, though 
found in all but three of the cursive, and in two of the later uncial 
manuscripts, is a corruption of the original. It is perhaps worth 
noting, that one of the more recent manuscripts which read o?, the 
Codex Colbertinus 2844 (numbered 17 in the Epistles by the critical 
editors), is of peculiar value. Eichhorn, as quoted by Tregelles, 
bpeaks of it as " full of the most excellent and oldest readings " ; and! 
styles it " the Queen of the manuscripts in cursive letters.' , 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 189 

shortly; but should I be delayed, that you may 
know how you ought to conduct yourself in the 
house of God, that is, the assembly of the living 
God. Beyond doubt, the great pillar and founda- 
tion of the true religion is the new doctrine con- 
cerning piety, which has been made known in hu- 
man weakness, proved true by divine power, while 

We are left then to decide between os and o. The question which 
of these readings is to be preferred is rendered more difficult of solu 
tion by the ambiguous evidence of most of the versions, and, it may 
be added, of many of the Fathers. It is not necessary to discuss it 
here. Among modern critics, os is regarded as the most probable 
reading by Benson, Griesbach, Schott, Vater, Kosenmuller, Hein- 
richs, Meyer, De Wette, Olshausen, Wiesinger, Huther, Lachmann, 
Tischendorf, Davidson, and Tregelles ; o is preferred by Erasmus, 
Grotius, Sir Isaac Newton, Wetstein, and Professor Porter. 

One who wishes to pursue the subject further, and to examine the 
authorities for the statements which have here been made, may con- 
sult, in addition to the notes of Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, and 
Tischendorf, in their editions of the Greek Testament, the Eclectic 
Review for January 1831, Art. III.; Porter's Principles of Textual 
Criticism, (London, 1848,) pp. 482-493; Davidson's Biblical Criti- 
cism, (London, 1853,) Vol. II. pp. 382 - 403 ; Tregelles's Account of 
the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, (London, 1854,) pp. 
227-231 ; and the able reviews of Porter and Davidson, by the Rev 
Dr. Noyes (who prefers the reading or), in the Christian Examiner 
for January 1850, and May 1853. The note of Wetstein deserves 
particularly to be studied. — Of the earlier defenders of the common 
reading of this passage, the ablest, perhaps, is Berriman, whose 
" Critical Dissertation upon 1 Tim. Hi. 16 " appeared in 1741. Among 
its later champions, the, most prominent is Dr. Ebenezer Hen- 
derson, whose essay on the subject, entitled " The Great Mystery 
of Godliness Incontrovertible," &c, was published in London in 
1830, and reprinted, with additional observations by Professor Stu- 
art, in the Biblical Repository for January 1832. The remark of 
Dr. Davidson, that "Henderson's reasoning to show that the Old 
Syriac version may have had 0eos equally well as o, is a piece of 
special pleading undeserving of notice," may be applied with justice 



190 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

angels were looking on, which has been proclaimed 
to the Gentiles, believed in the world, and has ob- 
tained a glorious reception." 

In the beginning of the second chapter of this 
Epistle, St. Paul speaks earnestly, and at length, 
of the prayers to be offered by Christians in their 
public assemblies. The main object of their thus 

to many other parts of this essay. The careful inquirer will find that 
it abounds in misstatements and false assumptions ; and will be as- 
tonished at the suppression of important facts, of which it hardly 
seems possible that the author can have been ignorant. Some of 
Dr. Henderson's errors are pointed out in the article in the Eclectic 
Review before referred to, and in the Christian Examiner for Janu- 
ary 1850, p. 29, note. There are other important mistakes and omis- 
sions not there noted, particularly in his account of the evidence of 
the Fathers. 

Professor Stuart, in the new edition of his Letters to Dr. Chan- 
ning contained in his " Miscellanies," published in 1846, has some 
remarks on this passage, in which he has repeated many of Dr. 
Henderson's errors, and added others of his own. After the state- 
ments and references which have been made, it is not worth while to 
point these out in detail. But though the accuracy of Professor 
Stuart cannot be relied on, he has shown his candor in the following 
honest concession, whicn is quoted with approbation by Dr. David 
son, himself a Trinitarian. 

" I cannot feel," he says, in concluding his remarks supplementary 
to Dr. Henderson's essay, " that the contest on the subject of the 
reading can profit one side so much, or harm the other so much, 
as disputants respecting the doctrine of the Trinity have supposed. 
Whoever attentively studies John xvii. 20-26, 1 John i. 3, ii. 5, 
iv. 15, 16, and other passages of the like tenor, will see that ' God 
might be manifest ' in the person of Christ, without the necessary 
implication of the proper divinity of the Saviour ; at least, that the 
phraseology of Scripture does admit of other constructions besides 
this ; and other ones, moreover, which are not forced. And con 
ceding this fact, less is determined by the contest about os and 0eos, 
in 1 Tim. iii. 16, than might seem to be at first view." — Biblical 
Repository for January, 1832, p. 79.] 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 191 

associating together was to excite their feelings of 
piety by mutual sympathy. Then follow direc- 
tions respecting the well-ordering of a Ch/istian 
community or church, and the proper character of 
its officers ; and, in conclusion, the Apostle recurs 
to the great distinctive character of Christianity, 
its new doctrine of piety to God, that state of 
mind which their assemblies were particularly in- 
tended to cherish. Thus we have a connected 
train of thought. But if the conclusion of the 
passage be explained of the manifestation of 
Christ, or of God, in the flesh, a new subject is 
abruptly introduced, having but a remote connec- 
tion with what precedes ; and one which we per- 
ceive no reason for the Apostle's adverting to in 
this place.* 



CLASS II. 



Passages relating to Christ which have been mis* 
translated. 

To this class belongs Philippians ii. 5, seqq. 
Here the Common Version makes the Apostle 
say of Christ, that he " thought it not robbery to 
be equal with God." This has been considered 
a decisive argument that Christ is God ; though 

* [For a notice of the various readings of some other passages 
Bupposed to have a bearing on the doctrine of the Trnity, see Appen- 
dix, Note C] 

21 



192 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

it is an absurdity to say of any being, that h* 
" thought it not robbery to be equal with him- 
self." Perhaps no text, however, has been more 
frequently quoted or referred to.* But it now 
seems to be generally conceded that the words 
have been mistranslated. In the verses that fol- 
low, the verbal rendering of ev pop^y Qeov is, " in 
the form of God," and that of fiopcprjv §ov\ov, " the 
form of a servant." But as these phrases do not 
correspond to our modes of expression, they can 
hardly convey a distinct meaning to most readers. 
" To be in the form of another," as here used, 
means " to appear as another," " to be as another." 
In a translation it is better to substitute one ot 
these equivalent, but more intelligible phrases. 
The whole passage may be thus rendered : — 

" Let the same disposition [Let the same hu- 
mility and benevolence] be in you which was in 
Jesus Christ, who being as God did not think that 
his equality with God was to be eagerly retained ; 
but divested himself of it, and made himself as a 
servant and was as men are, and being in the com- 
mon condition of man, humbled himself, and was 
submissive, even to death, the death of the cross." 

Christ was "in the form of God," or "the im- 
age of God," or " as God " ; he was " like G d,* 

• Thus Dr. Watts in one of his hymns : — 
" Yet there is one of human frame, 
Jesus arrayed in flesh and blood, 
Thinks it no robbery to claim 
A full equality with God. 
Their glory shines with equal beams," &c. 

Rook II., H 51 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 193 

or he was " equal with God " (the latter words 
being correctly understood) ; because he was a 
minister in the hands of God, wholly under his 
direction ; because his words were the words of 
God, his miracles, the works of the Father who 
sent him, and his authority as a teacher and legis- 
lator, that of the Almighty, not human, but divine. 
Yet notwithstanding that he bore the high char- 
acter of God's messenger and representative to 
men, with all the powers connected with it, he 
was not eager to display that character, or exer- 
cise those powers, for the sake of any personal 
advantage, or of assuming any rank or splendor 
corresponding to his pre-eminence over all other 
men. " Being rich, for our sakes he became 
poor."* He divested himself as it were of his 
powers, lowered himself to the condition of com- 
mon men, lived as they live, exposed to their 
deprivations and sufferings, and voluntarily, as if 
weak as they, submitted to an ignominious and 
torturing death. — When it is affirmed that Christ 
made himself as a servant, these words are illus- 
trated by those which he himself used, while in- 
culcating, like the Apostle, the virtues of humility 
and benevolence, with a like reference to his own 
example : " The Son of Man came not to be 
served, but to serve." f It is in imitation of this 
example, that he directs him, "who would be 
chief among his disciples, to become the servant 
of all." | 

• [2 Cor. viii. 9.] t Matthew xx. 28. J [Mark x. 44.] 



194 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

I proceed to another example. It is the mis- 
translation of the word al&ves by the English word 
" worlds," in the commencement of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews.* For giving this sense to the origi- 
nal term, there is not, I think, any authority to be 
found either in Hellenistic or classic Greek. It 
was not so used till long after the composition 
of this Epistle. In the theological dialect of Chris- 
tians, this sense was assigned to it in reference to 
the present passage and to another in this Epistle 
(Ch. xi. 3) ; and the corresponding Latin word scecu- 
lum acquired the same meaning. The Greek word 
aiwv was used to denote a space of time of con- 
siderable length, leaving its precise limits unde- 
fined. Hence it denotes, secondarily, tho state of 
things existing during such a period. In this sense 
it often occurs in the New Testament. We use 
the word age in a like signification, employing it 
to denote the men of a particular period, consid- 
ered in reference to their circumstances and char- 
acter, as when we speak of the " manners of an 
age," " the learning of an age," &c. So, likewise, 
the word time is used, though, by an idiom of our 
language, rather in the plural than the singular, as 
in the phrase, " the times of the Messiah." Shake- 
speare, however, says in the singular, " the time is 

* There can be no reason for not explaining the passages in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews which I believe to have been misunderstood, 
though I do not regard the Epistle as the work of St. Paul or any 
other Apostle. My reasons for this opinion I have formerly given 
in the Christian Examiner (Vols. IV., V., VI.), in a series of articles 
which I may, perhaps, at some time republish. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 193 

out of joint,"* meaning, "the present state of things 
is in disorder." 

In the passage under consideration, alcoves, " ages," 
most probably, I think, denotes the " different states 
of things which, in successive periods, would result 
from Christianity." In the Epistle to the Ephe- 
sians, it is used, I suppose, in the same sense, Ch. 
iii. ver. 11, Kara irpoOeaiv toov aicovoov rjv eiroirjaev 
ev XpiaTcp 'Itjctov tw Kvpicp r)/jLQ)v, " conformably to 
a disposition of the ages which he has made by 
Christ Jesus our Lord " ; f and probably also in 
the same Epistle (ii. 7) where the Apostle speaks 
of the favor of God that will be manifested " in the 
ages to come." In these passages, as well as in 
that from the Epistle to the Hebrews, the refer- 
ence, I presume, extends beyond this life to the 
future condition of Christians, to "the ages" after 
death. $ Thus, then, I would render and explain 
the meaning of the writer to the Hebrews in the 
first five verses of this Epistle : — 

" God, who at different times and in different 
ways formerly spoke to our fathers by the Proph- 
ets, has at last spoken to us by his Son, whom 

* [Hamlet, Act I. Sc. V.] 

t Not, as in the Common Version, u according to the eternal pur* 
pose, which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord." 

J In Hebrews xi. 3, alcoves is again translated " worlds." Here we 
may render thus : " Through faith we understand that the ages have 
been so ordered by the power of God, that what is seen had not it* 
origin in what was conspicuous." The meaning of the writer I con- 
ceive to have been, that through faith we believe that Christianity 
with all its results is to be referred to the power of God, nor having 
had its origin in any state of things previously existing. 
21 * 



196 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

he has appointed heir of all,* through whom also 
he has given form to the ages,f who being a reflec- 
tion of his glory, and an image of his perfections, 
and ruling all things with authority from him,J 
after having cleansed us from our sins by himself 
alone, § has sat down at the right hand of the 
Majesty on high ; being as much greater than the 
angels, as the title which he has obtained is pre- 
eminent above theirs. For to which of the angels 
did God ever say, Thou art my Son, this day have 
I made thee so? And again, I will be to him a Fa- 
ther ', and he shall be to me a Son ? " 

Another passage which may be mentioned is 
the conclusion of the First Epistle of St. John, thus 
rendered in the Common Version : — 

M And we know that the Son of God is come, 
and hath given us an understanding, that we may 
know him that is true ; and we are in him that is 
true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the 



* We may suppose that, the preceding dispensations of God being 
intended to prepare the way for Christianity, Christ is represented 
as " heir of all " which has been accomplished by them ; or the figu- 
rative term heir may be used with reference to the title of Son im- 
mediately before given to Christ, and " heir of all " may be equiv- 
alent to " Lord of all," denoting that Christ has been appointed " head 
over all " in the Christian dispensation. 

t Or, in other words, M has given form to what exists and is to ex 
ist," as the results of Christianity. 

J Read avrov, and not avrov, as is suggested, and almost required, 
by the occurrence of avrov in the preceding clause, and by the use of 
iavrov immediately after without the insertion of kcu 

§ That is, without the intervention of the sacrifices of the Jewish 
law 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 197 

true God and eternal life. Little children, keep 
yourselves from idols." 

According to the Trinitarian exposition of these 
words, the true God is the Son of God, and the 
two persons, who are so clearly distinguished by 
St. John, are one being. But the appearance of 
a Trinitarian meaning is the result of a false 
translation, particularly of the improper insertion 
of the word " even." The passage may be thus 
rendered. Its sense may be made clearer by going 
bacfc a little, and beginning at verse 18. 

" We know that whoever is born of God avoids 
sin ; the child of God guards himself, and the 
Wicked One cannot touch him. We are as- 
sured that we are of God, and that the whole 
world is subject to the Wicked One. And we 
are assured that the Son of God has come, and 
has given us understanding to know Him who is 
True. And we are with Him who is True through 
his Son Jesus Christ. He is the True God, and 
eternal life. Children, keep yourselves from idols." 

The meaning is, that He with whom Christians 
are, He who is True, is the True God, and the 
giver of eternal life.* In the former part of the 

* [Compare verse 11. The pronoun translated "He" by Mr. Nor« 
ton, or w This " in the Common Version, is regarded as referring to 
"Him who is True" by the most unprejudiced interpreters, whether 
Trinitarian or Unitarian ; among others, by Erasmus, Grotius, "YVet- 
Btein, Michaelis, Morus, Abp. Newcome, Rosenmuller, Jaspis, Schott, 
Winer (Gram. § 23. 1), Liicke, De Wette, Neander, Huther, Meyer 
(on Rom. ix. 5, 2d ed.), and Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, I. 128). The 
pronoun ovtos often refers not to the nearest preceding noun, but to 
a remoter antecedent, more prominent in the mind of the writer. See 
2 John 7, Acts iv. 11, and the Lexicons of the N. T. sub voce. 



198 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

passage St. John expresses the Jewish conception 
of the personality and power of Satan. To him, 
the Wicked One, he regarded the heathen world 
as subject ; while believers were through Christ 
with Him who is True, the True God. They 
were, therefore, to keep themselves from idols. 

Should it be said that these ideas are not happi- 
ly expressed, I answer, it is evident that the author 
of this Epistle was as unskilful a writer as we 
might expect to find one originally a Galilsean 
fisherman ; and should it be brought as an objec- 
tion against his being an inspired Apostle, that he 
adopted a popular error of his countrymen respect- 
ing the existence and power of a being, the sup- 
posed author of evil, I would ask in return, how, 
if he were not an inspired Apostle, one thus ex- 
posed in common with others to the errors of his 
age, rose so high above his contemporaries in 
his comprehension of the essential truths of re- 
ligion ? 

With the passage quoted from St. John may bo 
compared the words of his Master, which he had 
previously recorded : " And this is eternal life, to 
know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ 
whom thou hast sent." * After having recorded 
these words, with what amazement would he have 
been seized, had it been revealed to him that an 
epistle of his own would be interpolated in one 
place, and its meaning perverted in another, for 
the sake of proving a doctrine, about to be gener- 
ally received by Christians, that he who thus ad- 

* John xvii. 3. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 199 

dressed the only true God, that he whom God had 
sent, was himself the only true God ! 

To the class of mistranslations are likewise to 
be referred those passages which, on account of 
the omission of the Greek article, have been so 
rendered as to apply to Christ the title of " God." 
These, however, are in this particular correctly 
translated in the Common Version. As the ques- 
tion is purely a critical one, I will place the re- 
marks to be made upon it in a note.* 

* The argument for the deity of Christ founded upon the omis 
sion of the Greek article was revived and brought into notice in the 
last century by Granville Sharp, Esq. He applied it to eight texts 
which will be hereafter mentioned. The last words of Ephesians 
v. 5 may afford an example of the construction on which the argu- 
ment is founded : 

iv rfi j3a<ri\€ia rov XoiotoO kol Oeov. 
From the article being inserted before Xpiarov and omitted before 
0€oO, Mr. Sharp infers that both names relate to the same person, 
and renders, " in the kingdom of Christ our God." Conformably to 
the manner in which he understands it, it might be rendered, "in the 
kingdom of him who is Christ and God." The proper translation I 
suppose to be that of the Common Version, " in the kingdom of Christ 
and of God," or " in the kingdom of the Messiah and of God." 

The argument of Sharp is defended by Bishop Middleton in his 
Doctrine of the Greek Article. By attending to the rule laid down 
by him, with its limitations and exceptions, we shall be able to judge 
of its applicability to the passages in question. His rule is this : — 

"When two or more attributives, joined by a copulative or copula- 
tives, are assumed of [relate to] the same person or thing, before the 
first attributive the article is inserted, before the remaining ones it is 
omitted." (pp. 79, 80 ) 

By attributives, he understands adjectives, participles, and nouns 
which are significant of character, relation, and dignity. 

The limitations and exceptions to the rule stated by him are a9 
follows : — 



200 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

To the class of mistranslations might strictly be 
referred a very large part of all the passages ad- 
duced by Trinitarians, as will appear from what 

I. There is no similar rule respecting " names of substances con- 
sidered as substances" Thus we may say 6 \idos Ka\ xpvcro*) without 
repeating the article before xp^cros, though we speak of two different 
substances. The reason of this limitation of the rule is stated to be 
that "distinct real essences cannot be conceived to belong to the 
same thing"; or, in other words, that the same thing cannot be sup- 
posed to be two different substances. — In this case, then, it appears 
that the article is not repeated, because its repetition is not necessary to 
prevent ambiguity. This is the true principle which accounts for all 
the limitations and exceptions to the rule that are stated by Bishop 
Middleton and others. It is mentioned thus early, that the principle 
may be kept in mind ; and its truth may be remarked in the other 
cases of limitation or of exception to be quoted. 

II. No similar rule applies to proper names. " The reason," says 
Middleton, " is evident at once ; for it is impossible that John and 
Thomas, the names of two distinct persons, should be predicated of an 
individual." (p. 86.) This remark is not to the purpose ; for the same 
individual may have two names. The true reason for this limitation 
is, that proper names, when those of the same individual, are not 
connected by a copulative or copulatives, and therefore that, when 
they are thus connected, no ambiguity arises from the omission of the 
article. 

III. " Nouns," says Middleton, u which are the names of abstract 
ideas, are also excluded ; for, as Locke has well observed, 4 Every 
distinct abstract idea is a distinct essence, and the names which stand 
for such distinct ideas are the names of things essentially different.' n 
(Ibid.) It would therefore, he reasons, be contradictory to suppose that 
any quality were at once direipta and aTraibevcria. But the names of 
abstract ideas are used to denote personal qualities, and the same per- 
sonal qualities, as they are viewed under different aspects, may be 
denoted by different names. The reason assigned by Middleton is 
therefore without force. The true reason for the limitation is, that 
usually no ambiguity arises from the omission of the article before 
words of the class mentioned. 

IV. The rule, it is further conceded, is not of universal application 
as it respecti vlurals ; for, says Middleton, " Though one individual 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 201 

follows ; but my purpose under the present head 
has been to remark only on a few, in which the 
error is more gross than usual, or the misuse of 

may act, and frequently does act, in several capacities, it is not likely 
that a multitude of individuals should ail of them act in the same sev- 
eral capacities : and, by the extreme improbability that they should be 
represented as so acting, we may be forbidden to understand the sec- 
ond plural attributive of the persons designed in the article prefixed 
to the first, however the usage in the singular might seem to counte- 
nance the construction." (p. 90.) 

V. Lastly, " we find," he says, " in very many instances, not only 
in the plural, but even in the singular number, that where attributives 
are in their nature absolutely incompatible, i. e. where the application 
of the rule would involve a contradiction in terms, there the first 
attributive only has the article, the perspicuity of the passage not re- 
quiring the rule to be accurately observed? (p. 92.) 

Having thus laid down the rule, with its limitations and exceptions, 
Bishop Middleton applies it to some of the passages in the New 
Testament adduced by Mr. Sharp in proof of the divinity of Christ. 
These were Acts xx. 28 (supposing the true reading to be rod Kvpiov 
Kal 0eov) ; Ephes. v. 5 ; 2 Thess. i. 12 ; 1 Tim. v. 21 (if Kvpiov 
should be retained in the text) ; 2 Tim. iv. 1 (if we read tov Qeov 
Ka\ Kvpiov) ; Titus ii. 13 ; 2 Peter i. 1 ; Jude 4 (supposing Qeov 
to belong to the text). In four of these eight texts, the reading 
adopted to bring them within the rule is probably spurious, as may 
be seen by referring to Griesbach ; and they are in consequence either 
given up, or not strongly insisted upon, by Middleton. In one of 
the remaining, 2 Thess. i. 12, the reading is Kara tijv x^P LV T °v ®*ov 
fifjLcov Kal Kvpiov 'I^crou XoioroO. Of this Middleton is " disposed to 
think that it affords no certain evidence in favor of Mr Sharp," be- 
cause he " believes that Kvpios in the form of Kvpios *Ir)o~Gi>s Xpicrros 
became as a title so incorporated with the proper name as to be sub- 
ject to the same law." (pp. 554, 564.) The three remaining texts are 
those on which he principally relies. 

By the application of the rule to the passage last mentioned, it is 
inferred that Christ is called " God,' 1 and '■ the great God" ; and it is 
affirmed that the rule requires us to understand these titles as applied 
to him. The general answer to this reasoning is as follows 

It appears by comparing the rule with its exceptions and limita 



202 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

which has principally arisen from their being in- 
correctly rendered. As may readily be supposed, 
the different classes of texts that I have formed 



tions, that it in fact amounts to nothing more than this : that when sub- 
stantives, adjectives, or participles are connected together by a cop- 
ulative or copulatives, if the first have the article, it is to be omitted 
before those which follow, when they relate to the same person or 
thing; and is to be inserted, when they relate to different persons 
or things, except when this fact is sufficiently determined by some 
other circumstance. The same rule exists respecting the use of the 
definite article in English. 

The principle of exception just stated is evidently that which runs 
through all the limitations and exceptions which Middleton has laid 
down and exemplified, and is in itself perfectly reasonable. When, 
from any other circumstance, it may be clearly understood that dif- 
ferent persons or things are spoken of, then the insertion or omission 
of the article is a matter of indifference. 

But if this be true, no argument for the deity of Christ can be 
drawn from the texts adduced. With regard to this doctrine, the 
main question is, whether it were taught by Christ and his Apostles, 
and received by their immediate disciples. Antitrinitarians maintain 
that it was not ; and consequently maintain that no thought of it was 
ever entertained by the Apostles and first believers. But if this sup- 
position be correct, the insertion of the article in these texts was 
wholly unnecessary. No ambiguity could result from its omission. 
The imagination had not entered the minds of men, that God and 
Christ were the same person. The Apostles in writing, and then 
converts in reading, the passages in question, could have no more 
conception of one person only being understood, in consequence of 
the omission of the article, than of supposing but one substance 
to be meant by the terms 6 \t0os kcu xp vo ~° s <> on account of the 
omission of the article before XP V(T ^ S ' These texts, therefore, cannot 
be brought to disprove the Antitrinitarian supposition, because this 
supposition must be proved false, before these texts can be taken 
from the exception and brought under the operation of the rule. 
The truth of the supposition accounts for the omission of the 
article. 

[On the subject of this note, one may further consult the able tract 
of the Rev. Calvin Winstanley, entitled " A Vindication of certain 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 203 

un into each other; the misinterpretation of a 
passage not unfrequently having its origin in 
more than one cause.* 



CLASS III. 

Passages relating to God, which have been tncor* 
rectly applied to Christ. 

The first which I shall mention belongs likewise 
to the head of mistranslations. It is Romans ix. 5, 
thus rendered in the Common Version : " Whose 

Passages in the Common English Version of the New Testament. 
Addressed to Granville Sharp, Esq."; published in 1805, and re- 
printed, with additions, at Cambridge (Mass.) in 1819. See also an 
essay by Professor Stuart, entitled " Hints and Cautions respecting 
the Greek Article," in the Biblical Repository for April 1834; and 
the Rev. T. S. Green's " Grammar of the New Testament Dialect," 
(London, 1842,) p. 205, seqq., — a work containing many acute ob- 
servations. Winer, in his Grammar of the New Testament Idiom, 
§18.5, shows that there is no ground for the inference which Mid- 
dleton and others would draw from the omission of the article in 
Titus ii. 13 and Jude 4.] 

* [It may here be proper to notice the gross mistranslation of 
Hebrews ii. 16, which reads, " For verily he took not on him the na- 
ture of angels ; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." The 
Italics are those of the Common Version, the words thus printed 
being a wholly unauthorized addition of the translators. The verse 
should be rendered: "For he, truly, does not give aid to angels 
[i. e. is not the Saviour of angels] ; but he gives aid to the offspring 
of Abraham." The passage is thus understood by all modern inter- 
preters of any note. — It may also be remarked, that in the 14th 
verse of the same chapter "took part of" is improperly used for 
1 partook of," " shared."] 

22 



204 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the 
flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for 
ever. Amen." 

It must, one would think, strike a Trinitarian, 
who maintains the correctness of this construction 
and rendering, as a very extraordinary fact, that 
the title of " God over all blessed for ever," which 
is nowhere else given to Christ, should be intro- 
duced thus incidentally and abruptly, without ex- 
planation or comment, and without any use being 
made of the doctrine. The supposed fact appears 
still more extraordinary and unaccountable, when 
we recollect that one main purpose of the Epistle 
to the Romans was to meet the prejudices and 
errors of the unbelieving Jews respecting Chris- 
tianity; and that the doctrine which the Apostle 
is imagined to have asserted so briefly and ex- 
plicitly, and then to have left without attempting 
to clear it from a single objection, must have been 
in the highest degree obnoxious to them ; and one, 
therefore, which, in consistency with the design of 
the Epistle, required the fullest illustration and 
defence. In the second century, Justin Martyr, 
though far indeed from affirming that Christ was 
" God over all," maintained that he was " another 
god," the Logos of the Supreme. In the Dialogue 
which he represents himself as having held with an 
unbelieving Jew, Trypho, in defence of Christian- 
ity, he brings forward views and arguments similar 
to those in the Epistle to the Romans ; but in ad- 
dition to these we find a new topic, the deity of 
Christ, occupying a great part of the discussion. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 205 

If the doctrine had been rraintained by St. Paul, 
as it was by Justin, one would think that, in an- 
swering the objections ol the Jews, it would have 
been as necessary for the Apostle, as for Justin, to 
explain and defend it. The sentiments of the 
Jews concerning it, which undoubtedly would 
have been as strong in the time of St. Paul as 
they were a century later, appear from the words 
which Justin ascribes to Trypho : " You under- 
take to prove an incredible and almost impossible 
thing, — that a god submitted to be born and to 
become a man." * " As for what you say, that 
this Christ existed as a god before time was, and 
afterwards becoming a man, submitted to be born, 
and that he was born out of the common course of 
nature, it seems to me not only paradoxical, but 
foolish." f " All we [Jews]," says Trypho in an- 
other place, " expect that the Messiah will be a 
man born of human parents." J The whole argu- 
ment of St. Paul in opposition to the prejudices of 
the unbelieving Jews must have been incomplete 
and unsatisfactory, if he asserted this "incredible 
and almost impossible " doctrine in the clause of 
a sentence without attempting any vindication of 
its truth. 

The passage has, I believe, no bearing whatever 
upon the doctrine which it has been adduced to 
prove. The fact is well known, that the present 
pointing of the New Testament is of no authority; 

* Dial, cum Try ph., p. 283, ed. Thirlb. [c. 68 p. 292, D ed. Moril.] 
t Ibid., p. 233. [a\. c. 48. p. 267, B.] 
| Xbid., p. 235. [aL 3. 49. p. 268, A.] 



206 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

the more ancient manuscripts having been un- 
pointed ; and the points which we now find hav- 
ing been introduced by later transcribers and by 
editors. Let any one, then, turn to the passage in 
his Greek Testament, and put a dot at the top of 
the line (equivalent to a semicolon) after aaptca 
instead of a comma, as at present, and a comma 
after nravToav, and he will perceive that the follow- 
ing meaning immediately results : " He who was 
over all was God blessed for ever." 

" He who was over all," that is, over all which 
has just been mentioned by the Apostle. The 
rapidity of expression in the original, however, 
does not fully appear in such a rendering ; because 
in our language we are obliged to supply the 
ellipsis of the substantive verb. It may be imi- 
tated, however, by employing the participle instead 
of the verb. Doing this, I will give what seems 
to me a more correct translation of the passage, 
and of its context, than that in the Common 
Version : — 

" — My brothers, my natural kinsmen; who are 
Israelites, whose was the glory of being adopted as 
sons, whose were the covenants, and the Law, and 
the service of the temple, and the promises ; whose 
were the fathers, and from among whom the Mes- 
siah was to be born ; he who was over all being 
God blessed for ever. Amen." 

This conclusion, as every one must perceive, is 
in the highest degree proper and natural. Among 
the privileges and distinctions of the Jews, it could 
not be forgotten by the Apostle, that God had pre- 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 207 

sided over all their concerns in a particular man- 
ner. With regard, to the ellipsis of the substantive 
^verb, which we have supposed, nothing is more 
common. In the five verses, including the verse 
we are considering, between the 3d and 9th, it 
occurs at least six times.* 



* The following texts, to which many others might he added, 
afford examples of a similar ambiguity of construction in the writ- 
ings of St. Paul from the omission of the substantive verb: Ro- 
mans viii. 33, 34 ; x. 12; 1 Cor. i. 26 ; 2 Cor. iii. 14 (p) avaKakvitTo- 
fievov for ecrrt yap fir] avaK.a\vTTTop.evov) ; 2 Cor. v. 5 ; Ephes. iv. 4 
(comp. 5) ; Coloss. ii. 17. 

[Considering the importance which has been attached to this pas- 
sage, and the different explanations which have been given of it by 
distinguished scholars, a few additional remarks will perhaps be par- 
doned. 

The past privileges of the Jews being referred to by the Apostle, 
Mr. Norton has used the past tense in supplying the ellipsis of the 
substantive verb. So Conybeare and Howson, in their recent work 
on St. Paul, with Locke, Taylor, Wakefield, our countryman Charles 
Thomson, Semler, Stolz, and other translators and commentators. 
The past tense of the verb should similarly be supplied in 1 Cor. xv. 
47, 48, though the authors of the Common Version have improperly 
used the present. As the present participle denotes present time not 
absolutely, but relatively to the time of the leading verb of the sen- 
tence, or to the time, whatever it may be, which the writer has in 
mind, there can of course be no objection, if this view of the ellipsis 
is correct, to rendering 6 oav eVi ttclvtcov "he who was over all." 
(See John xii. 17, and Winer, Gram, des neutest. Sprachidioms, 
$ 46. 6.) It has, indeed, been contended by some critics, as Noesselt 
and Piatt, that 6 o>z> must refer to XpLo-ros as the antecedent, and be 
rendered " who is " ; as if the article 6 with &v or any other parti- 
ciple could not form the subject of an independent proposition. It 
can hardly be necessary to refer to such passages as John iii. 31, 
vi. 46, viii. 47, Rom. viii. 5, 8, etc., to prove a fact which belongs to 
the elements of Greek grammar. 

In the first part of the fifth verse, Mr. Norton has translated ef hv 
6 XpiaTos to Kara (rapKa, " from among whom the Messiah was to be 
22* 



208 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 

The passage was at an early period applied to 
Christ, particularly by the Latin Fathers. With 
the notions, however, of the earlier Christians, ie- 
specting the inferiority of the Son to the Father, 
the passage, when thus constructed, presented a 
difficulty as well as an argument. Hippolytus,* 

born. ■ The verbal rendering is, " from whom [was] the Messiah as 
to the flesh." It has been urged by many Trinitarians that the 
phrase " as to the flesh," which they would render " as to his human 
nature," implies that Christ possessed also a higher nature, namely, 
the divine ; and that it is necessary to understand the last part of the 
verse as referring to him, to complete the antithesis. Let us exam- 
ine these points. In the third verse of this chapter Paul speaks of 
his " kinsmen as to the flesh." Did Paul or his countrymen have also 
a divine nature? In 1 Cor. x. 18 we find the words, "Behold Israel 
as to the flesh" ; or, to translate more freely, "Look at those who are 
Israelites by natural descent " ; that is, in distinction from Chris- 
tians, the spiritual Israel, the true people of God. See also Gala- 
tians iv. 23, 29, and compare the eighth verse of the present chapter. 
The phrase Kara o-dpKa is a common one in the Epistles of St. Paul 
in reference to natural descent, or to other outward circumstances 
and relations, in distinction from what is spiritual. It certainly sug- 
gests an antithesis ; but it does not follow that the antithesis must be 
expressed, as is manifest from the first two passages quoted above. 
It was not to the Apostle's purpose, in this enumeration of the pecu- 
liar distinctions of the Jews, to supply the antithesis. It was only 
" as to the flesh " that Christ belonged peculiarly to the Jews. This 
view is confirmed by a passage in the Epistle of Clement of Rome to 
the Corinthians, cited by Yates in his " Vindication of Unitarianism." 
*E£ avrov yap Upels kgu Aeuircu raincs oi Xetrovpyovvrcs t<5 
Bvo'Laar^ptco rov Qeov • e£ avrov 6 Kvpios 'irjcovs to Kara. aapKa • 
€% avrov ftaaikels Ka\ ao^ovrcs Ka\ fjyovfievoii Kara, rbv Iov8av» 
"For from him [Jacob] were all the priests and Levites who served 
at the altar of God ; from him was the Lord Jesus as to the flesh ; 
from him were kings and rulers and leaders, in the line of Judah.*' 
(Cap. 32. Patr. Apost. Opp. ed. Hefele, p. 98, ed. tert.) If Clement 

* Contra Noetum, § 6. Opp. 1. 237 



EXPLANVTiONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 209 

or some writer under that name, explains it in 
reference to the declaration of Christ rendered in 
the Common Version, " All things are delivered 
unto me of my Father"; conceiving the dominion 
over all things not to have been essentially inhe- 
rent in Christ as properly the Supreme God, but 

in a passage so similar to the present, did not think it necessary to 
express the antithesis implied in to Kara o-dpica, St. Paul may not 
have thought it necessary here. 

In another place, however, the Apostle has supplied the antithesis 
suggested by the words in question ; but there, instead of describing 
Christ as " God over all, blessed for ever," he clearly distinguishes 
him from God. See the beginning of this Epistle, where he speaks of 
himself as " set apart to preach the gospel of God," "the gospel con- 
cerning his Son, who was of the race of David by natural descent [ver- 
bally, as to the flesh], but clearly shown to be the Son of God. as to his 
holy spirit, by his resurrection from the dead." (I quote from the un- 
published translation of Mr. Norton.) Though this passage has also 
been brought to prove the Son of God to be God himself, it does 
not appear to call for any remark, except perhaps this : that if any 
doctrine is unequivocally taught by St. Paul, it is, that the divine 
power displayed in the resurrection of Christ from the dead was 
not his own, but the power of God, the Father. See Acts xiii. 
30-37 ; xvii. 31 ; Rom. iv. 24 ; vi. 4; viii. 11; x. 9; 1 Cor. vi. 14; 
xv. 15 ; 2 Cor. iv. 14; xiii. 4 ; Galat. i. 1 ; Ephes. i. 19, 20 ; Coloss. 
ii. 12; 1 Thess. i. 10. 

But to return to our text. Among the examples of the ellipsis of 
the substantive verb referred to in Mr. Norton's note, we find one in 
which the construction is strikingly similar to that here supposed, as 
will be seen on placing the passages in juxtaposition : — 

Romans ix. 5. 6 (*>v eVi 7rdvTcov Qeos, cuXoy^roy, k. t. X. 

2 Cor. v. 5. 6 Be KaTcpyacrdfievos fjfJLas els avro tovto Qeos. 
To this may be added, 

2 Cor. i. 21. 6 Se /3e/3aia>z/ rj/ias kou xp^ois rjfias Qeos* and 

Heb. iii. 4. 6 de ndvra Karao-Kcvao-as Qeos- 
The construction of the passage thus illustrated, though apparently 
first suggested by Mr. Norton, not only seems to be liable to no well 



210 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

as assigned to him by the Father. It was, per 
haps, understood in a similar manner by Novatian, 
who has twice quoted the passage,* but who clearly 
did not believe Christ to be the Supreme Being. 
Tertullian says : " We never speak of two Gods 
or two Lords, but, following the Apostle, if the 

grounded philological objection, but agrees admirably with the rapid, 
earnest style of the Apostle Paul. The ellipsis of the substantive verb 
when 0f 6s forms the predicate of the sentence, is certainly in accord 
ance with his usual manner. 

There is another method, however, of understanding the passage, 
proposed by Erasmus, and since adopted by many distinguished 
scholars, according to which the last part of the sentence in ques- 
tion forms a doxology, a period or colon being placed after crap/ca, 
as by Mr. Norton. It may be observed, that, although in a ques- 
tion of punctuation manuscripts are of no authority, we actually 
find a point placed after o-dpica in this passage in several Greek man- 
uscripts, among them the celebrated Codex Ephrsemi. This punc- 
tuation is also followed by two of the most eminent critical editors, 
Lachmann and Tischendorf. The words may then be rendered, "He 
who is over all (or, He who was over all), God, be blessed for ever!" 
or, " God, who is over all, be blessed for ever ! Amen." This con- 
struction is adopted by Whiston, Semler, Bohme, Paulas, Reiche, 
Glockler, Winzer, Kollner, Meyer, Fritzsche, Riickert (in his second 
edition, though strongly opposing it in his first), Schrader, and Krehl. 
(Many of these names are given on the authority of Meyer and De 
Wette.) 

It has been very confidently asserted by Stuart and others, that 
this construction is forbidden by the laws of grammar, and wholly 
inadmissible, on the ground that, in forms of doxology in the New 
Testament and the Septuagint, the word evXoyrjros always precedes 
the subject, as we commonly say in English, " Blessed be God ! " 
and not, " God be blessed ! " The answer to this is, in the first place, 
that the usage referred to is not invariable in tbe Septuagint. In 
Pealm lxvii. 20 (al. lxviii. 19), in the first instance in which it occura 
the subject precedes : Kvpios 6 Oebs evXoyqrosj evXoyrjros Kvpiot 

* [De Trinitate, cc. 13, 30.] 



SXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 211 

Father and Son are to be named together, we call 
the Father, God, and Jesus Christ, Lord." " But 
when speaking of Christ alone, I may call him 
God, as does the same Apostle: Of whom is Christ, 
who is God over all blessed for ever. For speaking 
of a ray of the sun by itself, I may call it the sun ; 

fjfjiepav KaO' fj^epav. See also Genesis xxvii. 29, 6 Karapwfievos <T€ 
€7TLKaTapaTos, 6 de evkoywv ere evXoyrjfievos, " Cursed be he that 
curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee." Attempts have 
indeed been made to get rid of the passage in Psalm lxvii., by assert- 
ing that the reading is corrupt. But for this there is no critical 
authority. See Holmes and Parsons's edition of the Septuagint. 
All that can be said is, that the Septuagint here, as often elsewhere, 
does not literally correspond with the Hebrew, which in this pas- 
sage the translator probably misunderstood. — In the second place, 
the question whether the predicate or subject shall precede in Greek 
is determined, not by any arbitrary rule, but by the comparative em- 
phasis which the writer intends to give the one or the other, and by 
its connection with other words in the sentence. To write in Greek, 
evXoyrjTos 6 Qeos 6 cov eVl Travrav els tovs alcovas, as Koppe and 
others assert would be necessary if Paul had intended to close the 
sentence with a doxology, would be as unnatural as to say in English, 
" Blessed be God who is over all for ever," to say nothing of the am- 
biguity thus created. On a grammatical point like this there is no 
higher authority than Winer, who, after mentioning the fact that in 
the doxologies of the Old Testament the predicate usually precedes, 
goes on to remark: "But only empirical interpreters could regard 
this position as an unalterable rule ; for where the subject forms the 
leading idea, particularly where it stands in contrast wi h another 
subject, the predicate may and will be placed after it, comp. Ps. lxviL 
20. And so also in Romans ix. 5, if the words 6 a>v eVt Tvavroav Qeos 
evXoyrjros, etc. are referred to God, the position of the words is al- 
together suitable, and even necessary." (Gram, des neutest. Sprach- 
idioms, § 65. 3, p. 636, 5 te Aufl.) The Trinitarian Olshausen also 
says : " Riickert's remark, that ev^oyr/Tos, when applied to God, 
must, according to the idiom of the Old* and New Testament, always 
precede is of no importance. Kollner rightly observes, that the po- 
sition of the words is^ altogether [everywhere] not a mechanical thing, 



212 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

but when I mention at the same time the sun, 
from which this ray proceeds, I do not then give 
that name to the latter." * 

But it is to be observed that some of the earlier 
Fathers, especially the Greek Fathers, expressly 
denied that Christ is "the God over all." This 
title was applied to him by the Sabellians, and 
was considered as a distinguishing mark of their 

but is rather determined, in each particular conjuncture, by the con 
nection, and by the mind of the speaker." (Comm. on Romans, 
p. 326, note, Engl. Transl. published in Clark's Foreign Theol. Libr.; 

It may be mentioned that some critics, placing the colon or period 
after navTcov instead of trdp/ca, refer the words " who is over all " to 
Christ, and make the remainder of the verse a doxology. So Locke, 
Wetstein, Oertel, Justi, Stolz, Ammon, Baumgarten-Crusius, and 
De Wette in his German translation (3d ed., 1839), though in hi§ 
Commentary (4th ed., 1847) he appears more inclined to the con- 
struction just remarked upon. But this latter mode of understanding 
the passage seems to make the doxology too abrupt, and is exposed 
to other objections. 

It is not the purpose of this note to discuss the question of the 
comparative merits of Mr. Norton's interpretation, and that which 
regards the words 6 eai/ eVi Tvavrav, etc., as forming a doxology. It is 
enough if it has been shown that neither is open to any valid philo- 
logical objection, and that the pretence that the "laws of grammar" 
require us to understand the latter part of the verse as referring to 
Christ is groundless. The impartial reader will place a proper esti- 
mate on the language of such writers as Haldane, who speaks of " t'ae 
awful blindness and obstinacy of Arians and Socinians in their per- 
versions of this passage" as "more fully manifesting the depravity 
of human nature, and the rooted enmity of the carnal mind against 
God, than the grossest works of the flesh." (Exposition of the Epis- 
tle to the Romans, Amer. reprint of the 5th Edinb. ed., p. 454.)] 

* " Solum autem Christum potero deum dicere, sicut idem Apos- 
tolus, Ex quibus Christus ; qui est, inquit, deAis super omnia, benedictus 
in cevum omne. Nam et radium solis seorsum, solem vocabo ; solem 
autem nominans cujus est radius, non statim et radium solem appel- 
labo." — Ad vers. Praxeam, c. 13. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT* 213 

heresy. There is no one of the Fathers more 
eminent than Origen. " Supposing," says Origen 
in his work against Celsus, "that some among the 
multitude of believers, likely as they are to have 
differences of opinion, rashly suppose that the 
Saviour is the God over all ; yet we do not, for 
we believe him when he said, ' The Father who 
sent me is greater than I. ? "* Even after the 
Nicene Council, Eusebius, in writing against Mar- 
cellus, says : " As Marcellus thinks, He who was 
born of the holy virgin, and clothed in flesh, who 
dwelt among men, and suffered what had been 
foretold, and died for our sins, was the very God 
over all ; for daring to say which, the church of 
God numbered Sabellius among atheists and blas- 
phemers." f Now it is incredible that the text in 
question should have been overlooked. But the 
early Fathers, in making these, and a multitude of 
other similar declarations, concerning the inferiority 
of the Son to the Father, never advert to it. It 
evidently follows from this, that they had not the 
same conception as modern Trinitarians have of 
the meaning of the passage. They had read the 
words of the Apostle in which he speaks of " the 
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is 

* Origen. cont. Cels., Lib. VIII. § 14. Opp. I. 752. 

t Euseb. Eccles. Theol., Lib. II. c. 4. This, and the passage from 
Origen, are given by Wetstein in his critical remarks on the text, 
with other authorities to the same purpose. See also Whitby, Dis- 
qnisitiones Modestae, passim, but particularly pp. 26, 27, p. 122, and 
p. 197, ed. secund. — For placing a period after craoKa, Griesbach 
quotes the authority of " many Fathers who denied that Christ could 
be called * the God over all.' " 



214 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

blessed for evermore n ; * and the mystery of the 
Trinity being as yet but ill understood, they had 
not made such an advance in Orthodoxy as to be- 
lieve that Jesus Christ was the same being as his 
God and Father. 

We pass to Hebrews i. 10-12. It is unneces- 
sary to give the words at length. This passage 
belongs to the present class. The words were 
originally addressed by the Psalmist (Psalm cii. 25) 
not to Christ, but to God, and are so addressed by 
the author of the Epistle.f 

* 2 Cor. xi. 31. 

t The following are the remarks of Emlyn : — " Here we may 
observe, that the tenth verse, And thou Lord, &c., (though it is a new 
citation,) is not prefaced with, And to the Son he saith, as ver. 8, or 
with an again, as ver. 5, 6, and so chap. ii. 13, but barely, And thou 
Lord. Now the God last mentioned was Christ's God, who had 
anointed him ; and the author thereupon, addressing himself to this 
God, breaks out into the celebration of his power, and especially his 
unchangeable duration ; which he dwells upon, as what he princi 
pally cites the text for ; in order, I conceive, to prove the stability of 
the Son's kingdom, before spoken of: Thy throne, God, is for ever 
and ever ; God, thy God, has anointed thee ; and thou, Lord, i. e. thou 
who hast promised him such a throne, art he who laid the foundation 
of the earth, and by thy hands made the heavens, which, though of long 
and permanent duration, yet will at length perish ; but thou remainest, 
thou art the same, thy years shall not fail. So that it seems to be a dec- 
oration of God's immutability made here, to ascertain the durable- 
Bess of Christ's kingdom, before mentioned ; and the rather so, be- 
cause this passage had been used originally for the same purpose in 
the 102d Psalm, viz. to infer thence this conclusion, ver. ult. : The 
children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed be established before 
*hee. In like manner it here proves the Sons throne should be es- 
tablished for ever and ever, by the same argument, viz. by God's im- 
mutability ; and so was very pertinently alleged of God, without 
being applied to the Son ; to show how able his God, who had anoint- 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 215 



CLASS IV. 

Passages that might be considered as referring to 
the doctrine of the Trinity, supposing it capable 
of proof and proved, but which in themselves pre- 
sent no appearance of any proof or intimation of it. 

Such is the case with some of those urged with 
the most confidence; as the form of baptism re 
corded in Matthew (xxviii. 19), and thus rendered 
in the Common Version : — 

" Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptiz- 
ing them in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost," 

Here, as in many other passages, the error and 
obscurity of the version have favored the imposi- 
tion of a sense upon the passage which the original 
does not suggest. " To baptize in the name of an- 
other" is to baptize by authority from him, as his 
representative. But this every scholar knows is not 
the sense of our Saviour's direction. The Greek 
word rendered " name" is in this passage, as often 
in the Scriptures, redundant. It is used pleonasti- 
cally, by an idiom of the Hebraistic Greek, in which 

ed him, was to make good and maintain what he had granted him, 
viz. a durable kingdom for ever" — Emlyns Examination of Dr. Ben- 
neCs New Theory of the Trinity. Works, Vol. II. pp. 340, 341. Lon- 
don, 1746. 

Beside the purpose pointed out by Emlyn, the author of the Epis- 
tle may have had another in view, which was to declare, that while 
the throne of Christ, being upheld by God. should endure for ever, 
the heavens, the local habitation, as they were considered, of angels, 
should, on the contrary, perish, be rolled up as a garment and changed* 
23 



216 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

the Septuagint and New Testament are written. 
We have not the same turn of expression in our 
own language. In the original, it adds nothing 
to the sense of the passage. When literally ren- 
dered into another language in which the same 
idiom does not exist, it tends only to obscure the 
meaning. It should not therefore appear in a 
translation into English. 

But even if the term "name" be retained, there 
is no ground for the rendering, " baptizing them in 
the name." The Greek preposition €69 should here 
be rendered to. The whole passage may be thus 
translated : — 

" Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all na- 
tions ; baptizing them to the Father, and to the 
Son, and to the holy spirit." 

The meaning of which is, Go and make con- 
verts of men of all nations, dedicating them by 
baptism, through which they are to make a solemn 
public profession of their faith, to the worship of 
the Father, the only true God, to the religion 
which he has taught men by his Son, and to the 
enjoyment of those holy influences and spiritual 
blessings which accompany its reception. 

One may easily understand how this passage 
has appeared to Trinitarians to convey so clear 
a notice of the Trinity, since they have adopted 
its terms as technical in their theology, and im- 
posed upon them new and arbitrary senses, which 
have become strongly associated with the words, 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But he who con- 
tends that any proof of the doctrine is to be de- 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 217 

rived from it, must proceed altogether upon as- 
sumptions obviously false. Let us state them 
clearly. 

In the first place, to prove the personality of the 
holy spirit from this passage, it must either be as- 
sumed, — 

That when three objects are mentioned together 
in a sentence, and two of them are persons, the 
third must be a person also ;* that is, the Father 
and Son being persons, the holy spirit must be a 
person also : 

Or, the personality and deity of the holy spirit, 
and the deity of the Son, may all be rested upon 
the assumption, — 

That baptism was a rite of such a character, 
that to be baptized " in the name of," or " to the 
name of," or " to " any person or object, necessarily 
implies, that such person or object possesses the 
character of God : f 

Or, it may be assumed, — 

That when three persons or objects are thus 

* [As to the tenableness of this assumption, see 1 Samuel xxv. 
32, 33 : " Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who sent thee this day 
to meet me ; and blessed be thy advice ; and blessed be thou." Acts 
xx. 32 : "I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which 
is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all 
them which are sanctified." Tobit xi. 13 : "Blessed art thou, O God, 
and blessed is thy name for ever ; and blessed are all thine holy angels." 
See also Psalm lxxii. 18, 19; cv. 4; Hosea iii. 5 ; Ephesians vi. 10.] 

t [See 1 Corinthians x. 2 : The Israelites " were all baptized unto 
Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Ch. i. 13 : " Were ye baptized 
in the name of Paul ? " Bomans vi. 3 : " Know ye not, that so many 
of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death 9 
See also Matthew iii. 11 ; 1 Corinthians xii. 13.] 



218 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 

mentioned together, they must all be of equal 
dignity ; * so that, in the present case, the Father 
being God, the same character must also belong 
to the Son and holy spirit. 

These are the only grounds on which the deity 
of the Son and of the holy spirit can be inferred 
from the passage before us. But at this point of 
the reasoning, if we have arrived at any doctrine, it 
is the doctrine of the existence of three Gods. In 
order, therefore, to conclude the proof of the Trin- 
ity from this passage, it is necessary further to as- 
sume, — 

That when three persons are thus mentioned to- 
gether in a sentence, they must be regarded as 
constituting but one Being. 

Under this head may be explained the title 
" Son of God "' as applied to Christ ; on which I 
have before had occasion to remark.f The Trini- 
tarian supposes it to be evidence of the deity of 
Christ ; because as the son of a man has the na- 
ture of a man, so the Son of God must have a 
divine nature. 



* [See 1 Timothy v. 21 : "I charge thee before God, and the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and the elect angels" Revelation i. 4, 5 : " Grace be unto 
you and peace from Him who is, and was, and will be ; and from the 
seven spirits which are before his throne; and from Jesus Christ, the 
faithful witness." 1 Chronicles xxix. 20: "And all the congrega- 
tion bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lokd ana 

the king." See also Luke ix. 26; Exod. xiv. 31 ; 1 Samuel xii. 18, 
Prov. xxiv. 21 j Acts xv. 28 ; and the passages quoted in the first 
note on the preceding page.] 

t See p. 68. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 219 

If the doctrine of the deity of Christ involved 
no absurdity, the title in question might, without 
doubt, be used according to the analogy supposed ; 
but the proof of the doctrine must still be derived 
from other sources. No evidence of it could be 
drawn from this title alone ; because the title is 
one in common use, and its significancy in every 
other application of it is wholly different from the 
meaning ascribed to it by Trinitarians when ap- 
plied to Christ. For this entire difference, they 
must necessarily contend ; and in doing so virtu- 
ally acknowledge that there is no usage to justify 
them in understanding the title in the sense which 
they assign to it, and consequently that no infer- 
ence can be drawn from this title alone in proof of 
t/ie deity of Christ. 

Nor is there any difficulty in explaining its 
application to our Saviour. The author of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews (i. 5) quotes the words 
which God in the Old Testament is represented 
to have used concerning Solomon, as applicable 
to Christ : " I will be to him a father, and he 
shall be to me a son." * By these words was 
meant, that God would distinguish Solomon with 
peculiar favors ; would treat him as a father 
treats a son ; and they are to be understood in 
a similar manner when applied to Christ. " We 

* [2 Samuel vri. 14; compare 1 Chronicles xvii. 13; xxviii. 6. 
The same term is applied to the Israelites collectively, as the chosen 
people of God. See Exodus iv. 22, " Israel is my son, my first- 
born" , and Hosea xi. 1, "When Israel was a child, I loved him, 
and called my son out of Egypt."] 
23* 



220 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

beheld," says St. John in his Gospel (i. 14; 
" his glory, glory like that of an only son from 
a father";* that is, we beheld the glorious pow- 
ers and offices conferred upon him, by which he 
was distinguished from all others, as an only son 
is distinguished by his father. It is in reference 
to this analogy, and probably, I think, to this 
very passage m his Gospel, that St. John else- 
where calls Christ " the only Son of God," a title 
applied to him by no other writer of the New 
Testament.f 

But the title was also familiarly used to denote 
those qualities which recommend moral beings to 
the favor of God ; those which bear such a like- 
ness to his moral attributes as may be compared 
with the likeness which a son has to his father ; 
those which constitute one, in the Oriental style, 
to be of the family of God. Thus our Saviour 
exhorts his disciples to do good to their enemies, 
that they may be "sons of their Father in heaven." J 
Nor is this use of the term confined to the Scrip- 
tures. Philo urges him who is "not yet worthy to 

* 'E0eao-a/xe#a rr\v ho^av clvtov, ho^av cos povoyevovs irapa 7rarpos. 
These words should not be rendered, as in the Common Version, 
11 We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Fa- 
ther" To justify this rendering, both povoyevovs and irarpos should 
have the article. 

t There is a doubt whether the words, John iii. 16-21, in which 
this title occurs, are to be considered as the language of Christ or of 
the Evangelist. If St. John intended to ascribe them to Christ, he 
has probably clothed the ideas of his Master in his own language ; 
and we may so account for the use of a title in this passage, which 
Christ never elsewhere applies to himself. 

t Yiol rov narpos {7x001/, Matthew v. 45 ; compare Luke vi. 35. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 221 

be called a son of God," to aim at higher excel 
lence.* 

In reference to both these analogies, the term 
was pre-eminently applicable to Christ; and he 
was therefore called by others, and by himself, 
" The Son of God," the article being used, as 
often, to denote pre-eminence.f 

There are two subjects, that of Prayer to Christ, 
and that of the Pre-existence of Christ, each in- 
volving the consideration of several particular pas- 
sages, which may properly be treated under the 
present head. I will first speak 

Of Prayer to Christ. 

It has been maintained that Christ is God, ior 
the supposed reason that prayers were addressed 
to him by the first Christians. But the fact, if ad- 
mitted, would afford no support for this conclusion. 

* De Confusione Linguarum. Opp. I. 427, ed. Mang. — Aia rrjv 
SfioioTrjra viol ckclvov eivat, XoyurBevTes, " through likeness to God 
accounted to be his sons," is an expression in the Clementine Homi- 
lies, X. § 6. 

t The words ascribed (Luke i. 32) to the angel who foretold to 
Mary the birth of Christ, are sometimes quoted as explanatory of the 
title u Son of God," with reference to his miraculous conception. I 
believe, however, these words to mean : " He shall be great ; and he 
shall be [not shall be called] a son of the Most High " ; KaXetcrOai 
being equivalent to etvai, as in other passages. We find the same 
expression in Psalm lxxxii. 6. In verse 35, ftto, rendered in the 
Common Version " therefore," may be understood as meaning, 
" whence it may be inferred," "conformably to which," " so that." 

[It may be remarked, that our Saviour himself has expressly stated 
the ground which justified him in calling himself " the Son of God. ,; 
See John x. 36.] 



222 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

To pray is to ask a favor. In a religious sense, it 
is to ask a favor of an invisible and superior being. 
There is nothing in the nature of prayer which ren- 
ders it improper to be addressed to a being infe- 
rior to God. Whether such address be proper or 
not, must depend upon other considerations. In 
itself considered, there would be nothing more in- 
consistent with the great principles of natural re- 
ligion in our asking a favor of an invisible being, 
an angel, or a glorified spirit, than in our asking a 
favor of a fellow-mortal. For anything we can 
perceive, God might have committed the imme- 
diate government of our world, of this little par- 
ticle of the universe, or the immediate superin- 
tendence of the Christian church, to some inferior 
minister of his power. Such a being might thus 
have become an object of prayer. Nay, in con- 
sistency with all that we know of the character of 
God, there might have been an intercourse, very 
different from what now exists, between the visi- 
ble and the invisible world. The spirits of our 
departed friends might have become our guardian 
angels, with power to confer benefits and to an- 
swer our petitions. Prayers then might have been 
addressed to them. If, therefore, it were to appear 
that God has revealed to us that Christ is an 
object of prayer, as was believed by Socinus and 
his followers, this would afford no reason for con- 
cluding that Christ is God. What follows respect- 
ing pra^ei to Christ is, consequently, a mere di- 
gression ; but a digression on a topic so importan 
that it needs no excuse. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 223 

Those, at the present day, who reject the doc- 
trine of the Tri rity, believe that God * is the only 
object of prayer. To him alone they believe that 
Christ taught his followers to pray, by his precepts 
and example. He nowhere enjoined prayer to 
himself. And though the subject of prayer, viewed 
in the abstract, may appear under the aspect just 
presented ; yet, regarded in relation to the actual 
character and condition of man, we may perceive 
the goodness of that appointment of God which 
teaches us to direct our prayers to him alone. We 
may understand the privilege of raising our undi- 
vided thoughts to our God and Father, and repos- 
ing our whole trust in him. Man is thus brought 
into an intimate connection with his Maker, which 
could hardly have otherwise existed. 

Of the passages in the New Testament which 
have been supposed to favor the doctrine of prayer 
to Christ, the first that may be noticed is his own 
declaration to his disciples : " Again, I say to you, 
If two of you agree on earth concerning everything 
which they ask, their prayers will be granted by 
my Father in heaven. For where two or three 
come together as my disciples, there am I in the 
midst of them." f By the latter words our Saviour 

* To a Trinitarian, I may say that I use the term <; God " to de- 
rote " the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." 

t Matthew xviii. 19, 20 : "Concerning everything vhich they ask," 
fT€p\ navros 7rpdyfxaros ', not, " concerning anything'' \» ;n the Com- 
mon Version. The object of Christ, in the discourse from which the 
words are taken, was to inculcate upon his disciples perfect concord 
among themselves, and an entire unity of feeling and purpose as 
ministers of h's religion. The reference is to those prayers which 



224 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

did not mean to affirm, that he would be present 
with them to hear their prayers, which would be 
inconsistent with the words preceding, in which he 
refers them to his Father in heaven, as him who 
would grant their requests. His purpose was to 
declare, that the designs, labors, and prayers in 
which his followers might unite for the promotion 
of his cause, would be equally blessed with his 
own. It would be as if he were praying with 
them. They might feel the same confidence that 
his actual presence would inspire. 

Another passage commonly adduced in relation 
to this topic has, I think, no bearing upon it. It 
is the address of Stephen to Christ at his martyr- 
dom.* Upon this occasion Christ is represented 
as having been visibly present to Stephen. The 
prayer of the martyr, therefore, that he would re- 
ceive his spirit, or, in other words, that he would 
receive him to himself, is of no force to prove that 
it is proper to offer prayers to Christ as an invisi- 
ble being. We might with as much propriety ad- 
duce in support of this proposition the requests 
which were addressed to him when conversant 
among men, — those, for instance, in which his 
miraculous aid was implored. There is no evi- 
dence that the last words of Stephen, in which he 
prayed for his murderers, were addressed to Christ. 

St Paul, in his Second Epistle to the Corin- 
thians (xii. 8), speaking of ;i the thorn in his flesh," 

they might offer as his ministers, and in which they might all ac 
cord. 

* Acts vii. 59. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 225 

says that he thrice besought the Lord, meaning, 1 
think, Christ, that he might be relieved from it. 
Immediately before, he speaks of the extraordinary 
nature of the revelations that had been granted 
him. He was converted by the personal interposi- 
tion of Christ. He himself mentions a subsequent 
period when Christ was present with him, and 
directed his conduct.* Considering the peculiar 
miraculous intercourse subsisting between him and 
our Lord, his addressing a request to him cannot 
be considered as affording any example or author- 
ity for prayer to Christ under ordinary circum- 
stances. The request of Paul may have been 
offered when he had a miraculous sense or per- 
ception of his Master's presence. 

We have indeed sufficient ground for believing, 
generally, that after our Saviour's removal from 
earth there still continued a peculiar connection 
between him and his Apostles and first followers ; 
that he exercised a miraculous superintendence over 
their concerns, and held miraculous intercourse with 
them. Of the nature and extent of this connection 
the Apostles were probably ignorant, having never 
been enlightened on the subject by express revela- 
tion. The facts with which we know them to 
have been acquainted are sufficient to account for 
their expressions concerning it, in the very few 
passages that may be supposed to relate to it. 

Among these may, perhaps, be reckoned the pas- 
sages in which St. Paul expresses his wish, that 

* Acts xxii. 17, seqq. [See also Acts xix 9, 10; xxiii 11 ; Gala 
tians i. 1. 11, 12.] 



226 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

the " favor of Christ" may be with those whom 
he addresses. But it seems to me most probable, 
that by the favor of Christ the Apostle means 
principally, if not solely, that favor, those blessings, 
of which Christ was the minister to man. 

The only other passages of importance in which 
prayer is supposed to be addressed to Christ by a 
writer of the New Testament, are the following: — 

1 Thess. iii. 11, 12. " May our God and Father 
himself, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our w T ay 
toward you ; and may the Lord make you increase 
and abound in your love toward each other and 
toward all, as we do toward you." 

2 Thess. ii. 16, 17. 4 < May our Lord Jesus Christ 
himself, and our God and Father who has loved us, 
and has, through his favor, given us everlasting en- 
couragement and good hope, encourage your hearts 
and confirm you in every good word and work." 

In the former of these passages, we find St. Paul 
expressing a wish that Christ under God might 
direct his way to the Thessalonians. It may be 
explained by the fact of that peculiar and miracu- 
lous superintendence over his preaching which was 
exercised by his Master. We know that he had 
first preached to the Thessalonians in consequence 
of a miraculous direction.* In the latter passage, 

* " But Paul and Silas having pissed through Phrygia and Gala- 
tia, and being restrained by the holy spirit from preaching the re- 
Jigion in Asia, came to Mysia, and were preparing to go to Bithynia; 
but the spirit of Jesus did not permit them. So, passing through 
Mysia, they went down to Troas. And a vision appeared by night 
to Paul. A certain man, a Macedonian, was standing by him and 
entreating him, saying, Pass over to Macedonia and help us. Then, 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 22? 

in his wishes that the Thessalonians might enjoy 
spiritual blessings from Christ, he may probably 
refer to the blessings flowing from the gospel which 
Christ taught. The effects of the gospel are as- 
cribed to its great teacher ; and sometimes, in the 
figurative style of the New Testament, with a turn 
of expression which, according to our more re- 
strained use of language, might imply an imme- 
diate agency in their production which was not 
intended by the writer. If, however, the Apostle 
had in view, not the power of the gospel, but a 
present agency of Christ, we must consider his 
language as founded upon the conception which 
he entertained of Christ's extraordinary agency 
over the concerns of the first Christians. 

This agency, as I have said, was miraculous. 
We have no reason to believe in its continuance 
after the Apostolic age. A connection of the 
same nature, a miraculous connection between 
Christ and his followers, does not exist at the pres- 
ent day ; nor have we any ground for believing 
that God has committed to him a superintendence 
of their concerns. Though it should, therefore, 
appear, that, in consequence of the extraordinary 
and peculiar relation subsisting between Christ 
and the first Christians, he was, under certain cir- 
cumstances and conditions, regarded by his Apos- 
tles as one to whom requests might be addressed ; 
yet, upon the ceasing of that relation, no reason 

immediately after this vision, we endeavored to go to Macedonia , 
concluding that the Lord [Christ] had directed us to preach the Gos- 
pel to them." Acts xvi. 6- 10. 
24 



228 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

would remain for his being regarded by common 
Christians as an object of prayer. 

But it has been contended that the first Chris- 
tians, generally, were accustomed to offer prayers 
to Christ. This belief is founded upon a few pas- 
sages in which Christians, according to the render- 
ing of the Common Version, are represented as 
"calling upon his name." Thus, Acts ix. 14, "He 
[Saul] hath authority to bind all that call on thy 
name " ; — the address of Ananias to Saul, Acts 
xxii. 16, "And now why tarriest thou? arise and 
be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on 
the name of the Lord"; — 1 Cor. i. 2, "To the 
church of God which is at Corinth, ..... with all 
that in every place call upon the name of Jesus 
Christ, our Lord." Another passage to the same 
effect may be found in Acts ix. 21. 

The expression in the original, rendered " to call 
on the name of" is one often used in the Septuagint 
in relation to God, where direct address in prayer 
to him is intended. But its meaning varies, I be- 
lieve, when used concerning a different being. 

In this, as in many other cases, the term ren- 
dered "name" is pleonastic, and should be omitted 
in a translation. This being premised, it may next 
b3 remarked, that the Greek verb eiTLKa\ela6ai f ren- 
dered "to call upon," does not properly and di- 
rectly denote religious invocation. In its primary 
sense, it signifies " to call" or "to call upon" any 
one; in a secondary meaning, "to call on one for 
help." By a very easy extension of this meaning, 
it denotes, I believe, " to look to one for help," " to 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 229 

rdy upon one for help, protection, deliverance," 
*' to trust in one." In this use of it, no verbal ad- 
dress is implied ; the word is used metaphorically. 
It literally denotes " calling for help " ; it is used 
to express the state of mind in which we trust in 
another for help. In this sense, I think, the word 
ought to be understood, when used concerning 
Christ. The meaning of the terms rendered " call- 
*ig on the name of Christ," would, I believe, be 
properly and fully expressed in English by the 
words, " looking to Christ for deliverance," that is, 
through the power of the gospel. 

But, it may be asked, why, when the words iu 
question have a meaning in which they are often 
used in the Septuagint, and according to which 
they would describe Christians generally as invok- 
ing, that is, praying to, Christ, should this mean- 
ing be set aside ? I repeat what I have said, that 
the verb enriicakeioQai does not properly and di- 
rectly denote religions invocation ; and that, its 
object being changed, there is nothing improbable 
in the supposition that the signification of the verb 
is changed also. I answer further, that there seem 
to be insuperable objections to the belief that prayer 
was offered to Christ by the first Christians. His 
followers were not commanded by our Saviour to 
pray to him. Without such a command, they 
could not have supposed that he whom they had 
known habitually to offer prayers to his Father and 
our Father, was himself an object of prayer. Our 
Saviour referred his Apostles from himself to God, 
as the invisible being to whom their requests were 



230 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

to be addressed when he should be taken from 
them, — as the only proper object of prayer: u Then 
you will have no need to question me.* Truly, 
truly I tell you, Whatever you may ask the Fa- 
ther in my name, he will grant you." f Conform- 
ably to this, we find no precept enjoining prayer 
to Christ in their writings. But whether Chris- 
tians were or were not to pray to Christ, could not 
have been a matter of indifference. It was either 
to be done, or it was not to be done. If a duty, it 
differed from other duties, in the circumstance that 
it must have been founded solely upon revelation 
and an express command. At the same time, if 
Christians were to have two objects of prayer, pe- 
culiar directions, explanations, and cautions must 
have been necessary. But nothing appears in the 
New Testament answering to the suppositions 
which have been made. There is an entire want 
of that evidence of the fact which must have ex- 
isted, if prayer to Christ had been commanded by 
himself and his Apostles. But if not so com- 
manded, it was not practised by the first Chris- 
tians. The case was the same with them as with 
us ; if it be not a duty to pray to Christ, it is a 
duty not to pray to him. 

* [See John xvi. 17-19-1 

I" John xvi. 23. The words iv eKeivrj rfj rjfxepa, rendered [in the 
Common Version] " in that day," are merely equivalent to the ad- 
verb "then." The time intended is that following our Saviour's 
ascension, when, in figurative language, he says that he shall be with 
his Apostles again, not referring to his personal presence, but to his 
presence with them in the power and blessings of his gospel, and in 
the aid afforded them by God as his ministers 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 231 

It appears, therefore, from the New Testament, 
that th~5 first Christians did not offer prayers to 
Christ. But there is still other evidence of this 
truth, to which, though of less importance, it may 
be worth while to advert. 

It has been urged that Pliny, in his celebrated 
letter to Trajan,* states (on the authority of some 
who said that they had been Christians, but who 
had deserted the religion) that Christians in their 
assemblies were "accustomed to sing together a 
hymn in alternate parts to Christ as to a god," — 
u carmen Christo, quasi deo, dicere secum invicem." 

These words have been alleged to prove, both 
that Christians prayed to Christ, and that they 
believed him to be God. But the only fact which 
appears is, that Christians sung hymns in celebra- 
tion of Christ. The rest is the interpretation of a 
heathen, who compared in his own mind these 
hymns to those which the heathens sung in honor 
of their gods, who like Christ had dwelt on the 
earth, and like him, having died, were supposed 
to be still living in a higher state of being. With 
his heathen notions, he conceived of the Chris- 
tians as making a sort of apotheosis of their Mas- 
ter. But there is evidence on the subject before 
us much more direct and more important than that 
of Pliny. 

It is the evidence of Origen, who wrote a trea- 
tise u On Prayer " in the former half of the third 
century. Of prayer, properly speaking, Origen 
says : — 

* [Plinii Epist Lib. X. Ep. 96 (al. 97).] 
24* 



2^$2 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

" If we understand what prayer is, it wall appear 
that it is never to be offered to any originated 
being, not to Christ himself, but only to the God 
and Father of all ; to whom our Saviour himself 
prayed, and taught us to pray. For when his 
disciples asked him, Teach us to pray, he did not 
teach them to pray to himself, but to the Father. 

Conformably to what he said, Wliy callest 

thou me good ? there is none good except one, God 
the Father, how could he say otherwise than, ' Why 
dost thou pray to me ? Prayer, as you learn from 
the Holy Scriptures, is to be offered to the Father 

only, to whom I myself pray.' ' You have 

read the words which I spoke by David to the 
Father concerning you ; 1" will declare thy name to 
my brethren; in the midst of the assembly will 1 
sing hymns to thee. It is not consistent with rea- 
son for those to pray to a brother, who are esteemed 
worthy of one Father with him. You, with me 
and through me, are to address your prayers to 

the Father alone.' Let us then, attending to 

what was said by Jesus, and all having the same 
mind, pray to God through him, without any di- 
vision respecting the mode of prayer. But are we 
not divided, if some pray to the Father and some 
to the Son? Those who pray to the Son, whether 
they do or do not pray to the Father also, fall into 
a gross error, in their great simplicity, through 
want of judgment and examination."* 

* De Oratione, cc. 25, 26. Opp. I. pp. 222-224. I quote the last 
passage principally because it is erroneously rendered by Dr. Priest- 
ley (History of Early Opinions, II. 161) in a manner directly adverse 
to his own argument 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 233 

In learning and talents, Origen, during his life- 
time, had no rival among Christians. There was 
none who possessed the same weight of character. 
The opinions which he expresses in the passages 
just quoted were undoubtedly the common opin- 
ions of the Christians of his time. 

Origen himself, indeed, in other passages, asserts 
or implies that prayer in an inferior sense may be 
addressed to the Logos or Christ. In his work 
against Celsus, he says, for instance : " Every sup- 
plication, prayer, request, and thanksgiving is to be 
addressed to Him who is God over all, through the 
High- Priest, superior to all angels, the living and 
divine Logos. But we shall also supplicate the 
Logos himself, and make requests to him, and give 
thanks and pray, whenever we may be able to dis- 
tinguish between prayer properly speaking and 
prayer in a looser sense." * Probably what is here 
meant may appear from two other passages, in his 
work against Celsus, in which he says : u We first 
bring our prayers to the only Son of God, the 
First-born of the whole creation, the Logos of 
God, and pray to him and request him, as a High- 
Priest, to offer up the prayers which reach him to 
the God over all, to his God and our God." f It 
is, indeed, most likely that the doctrine of Origen 
concerning the propriety of offering prayers, in any 
sense of the term, to the Logos or Christ, had its 

* Cont. Cels. Lib. V. § 4 Opp. I. 580. — iav hvvco^Oa KaraKovciP 
*TjS TTCpl 7rpO(T€V^(7]S Kvpioke^ias kcu KaraxpfjcrecdS' 

t Ibid., Lib. VIII. § 13. p. 751, et § 26. p. 761. Compare, how- 
ever, Lib. V. § 11, ad fin p. 586. [See also Lib. III. c. 34. p 469.] 



234 EXPLANATIONS Or THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

origin rather in his own philosophical opinions, 
than in the belief and practice of the generality of 
Christians. 

The Trinitarian supposes that the first Chris- 
tians were taught to pray to Christ or the Son, as 
God equal to the Father, and that they were dis- 
tinguished, by the circumstance of offering such 
prayers, as "those who called upon the name of 
the Lord." How is it possible to reconcile this 
supposition with the state of opinion and practice 
which we find among Christians during the time 
of Origen, the first half of the third century ? The 
Antitrinitarian believes that the doctrine of the 
deity of Christ had been making gradual progress. 
When, therefore, he finds that, at the period just 
mentioned, Christ was still spoken of, by a writer 
so eminent as Origen, as not being an object of 
prayer properly so called, no doubt remains on his 
mind that he had never been so regarded at any 
preceding period, that he was not so represented 
by himself or his Apostles, nor so esteemed by the 
first Christians. 

On the Pre-existence of Christ. 

I will now turn to the passages which are sup* 
posed particularly to assert the pre-existence of 
Christ. If this doctrine were proved, it would 
afford no proof of his being God; but the preju- 
dices in favor of the Trinitarian doctrine have, 
notwithstanding, been strengthened by a misun- 
derstanding of the passages referred to. The fig- 
urative language in which several of them are 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 235 

expressed may, I think, be explained by the fol- 
lowing considerations. 

One of the main objections of the generality of 
the Jews to Christianity was its being a novelty, 
an innovation, subverting their former faith. The 
Pharisees said : " We are disciples of Moses. We 
know that God spoke to Moses; but as for this 
man, we know not whence he is."* The doctrine 
of Christ was in direct opposition to the popular 
religion of the Jew T s, which, though a religion of 
hypocrisy, formalities, superstition, and bigotry, 
they had identified in their own minds with the 
Law ; — and the Law, their ancient Law, which 
for fifteen centuries, as they believed, had been 
their distinguishing glory, they looked upon as an 
immutable covenant made by God with his chosen 
people. Were the doctrines of Christ, they might 
ask, to be opposed to what they believed, and what 
their fathers had believed, upon the faith of God ? 
Was a teacher of yesterday to be placed in com- 
petition with Moses and the Prophets ? Was it to 
be supposed that God would change his purposes, 
alter the terms of their allegiance, and substitute a 
new religion for that which he had so solemnly 
sanctioned ? 

One mode of meeting these feelings and preju- 
dices of the Jews was by the use of language 
adapted to their modes of conception, asserting or 
implying that the sending of Christ, and the estab- 
lishment of his religion, had always been purposed 

# John ix. 28, 29. 



236 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

by God. This was done in part by figurative 
modes of speech, conformed to the Oriental style, 
and more or less similar to many which we find in 
the Old Testament. Facts connected with the 
introduction of Christianity were spoken of by 
Christ and his Apostles — according to the verbal 
meaning of their language — as having taken place 
before the world was ; the purpose being to express 
in the most forcible manner, that their existence 
was to be referred immediately to God, and had 
from eternity been predetermined by him. What 
they meant to represent God as having foreor- 
dained, they described as actually existing. 

Thus St. Paul says in his Epistle to the Romans 
(viii. 29, 30), " For those whom God foreknew, he 
predestined should be conformed to the image ot 
his Son, that he might be the first-born among 
many brethren ; and whom he predestined he sum- 
moned, and whom he summoned he made right- 
eous, and whom he made righteous he glorified." 
I refer particularly to the last clause, in which God 
is spoken of as having already glorified the disci- 
ples of Christ, because it is certain that he will.* 

Thus also in writing to the Ephesians (i. 3, 4) : 
" Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, who, having exalted us to heaven, is bless- 
ing us with every spiritual blessing through Christy 
he having in his love chosen us through him before 
the foundation of the world" 

To Timothy (2 Ep. i. 8, 9) he says: " Suffer to 

* Compare verses 17-25. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 237 

gether with me for the gospel, sustained by the 
power of God, who has delivered us, and sum- 
moned us by a sacred call, not in consequence of 
our works, but conformably to his own purpose, 
and the favor bestowed upon us through Christ Jesus 
before time was" 

So also to Titus (i. 1, 2) : " Paul, a servant of 
God, and an Apostle of Jesus Christ, to preach 
the faith of the chosen of God, and to make known 
the truth which leads to the true worship of God, 
founded on the expectation of eternal life, which 
God who cannot deceive promised before time was" 

For other passages in which that which is pur- 
posed by God is figuratively spoken of as actually 
existing, see Exodus xv. 13, comp. 17 ; 1 Samuel 
xv. 28 ; Psalm cxxxix. 16 ; Isaiah xlix. 1 ; John 
x. 16 ; Acts xviii. 10 ; Galatians i. 15. 

When Christianity, after having been preached 
to the Jews, was, if I may so speak, committed in 
trust to its Gentile converts, it had to encounter 
the same objection of its being a novel dcctrine ; 
and this objection was met in a similar manner, 
and by a similar use of language. In his " Exhor- 
tation to the Gentiles," Clement of Alexandria 
says : " Error is ancient, truth appears a novel- 
ty." Then, after mentioning some of those nations 
which made the most extravagant pretensions to 
antiquity, he adds: "But we [Christians] were 
before the foundation of the world ; through the 
certainty of our future existence, previously exist- 
ing in God himself." * 

• IIpo &€ ttjs tov Koo-fiov KarafioXrjs T]fi€is ' oi ra) dciv faeaOai, 



238 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

We should hardly expect to find in the New 
Testament a critical explanation of any figurative 
mode of speech ; but something very like such an 
explanation of that which we are considering is 
found in St. Paul, when his words are properly 
translated and understood. 

Tn the book of Genesis (xvii. 4, 5) God is rep- 
resented as saying to Abraham, " Behold, my cove- 
nant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of 
many nations. Neither shall thy name any more 
be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham ; 
for a father of many nations have I made thee? 

iv avrco 7rpoT€pov yeyewrjuevoi ra> 6e<5, p. 6, ed. Potter. — Thus 
too in a book which in very early times was in considerable repute 
among Christians, " The Shepherd of Her mas," Hermas represents 
himself as being told by an angel in a vision, that " the Church was 
the first created of all things, and for her sake the world was made." 
(Lib. I. Vis. 2.) 

. We find the same figurative use of language in the writings of the 
later Jews. In the Talmud it is recorded that R. Eliezer said : 
" Seven things were created before the world ; the Garden of Eden, 
the Law, the Righteous, the Israelites, the Throne of Glory, Jerusa- 
lem, and the Messiah, the Son of David." This, in the Book Cosri, 
is explained as meaning, that " they were prior in the intention of 
God " ; they constituting the end for which the world was created ; 
and the end being in intention precedent to the means. (Liber Cosri, 
ed. Buxtorf. p. 254.) Many similar passages are quoted or referred 
to by Schoettgen (Horse Hebr , Tom. II. pp. 436, 437), among which 
are the following. Sohar Levit, fol. 14, col. 56 : " Rabbi Hezekiah 
sat down in the presence of Eleazar, and, asked, How many lights 
were created before the foundation of the world ? He answered, 
Seven ; the light of the Law, the light of Gehenna, the light of Para- 
dise, the light of the Throne of Glory, the light of the Temple, the 
light of Repentance, and the light of the Messiah." In various other 
Rabbinical books cited by Schoettgen we find the same enumeration, 
except that the word "light" is omitted throughout, and "the name 
of the Messiah " is substituted for "the light of the Messiah." But in 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 239 

Referring to this passage, St. Paul says, in his 
Epistle to the Romans (iv. 16, 17) : " The promise 
was sure to all the offspring of Abraham, not to 
those under the Law only, but to those who have 
the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all 
(as it is written, I have made thee a father of many 
nations) in the sight of God in whom he trusted, — 
of Him who restores life to the dead, and speaks 
of the things which are not, as though they were." 
In the view of the Apostle, God, as it were, re- 
stored life to the dead, in enabling Abraham and 
Sarah to have a son;* and, in calling Abraham 

Bereshith Rabba. sect. 1, fol. 3. 3, there is a different statement: — 
'• Six things preceded the creation of the world : some of these were 
created, as the Law and the Throne of Glory ; others it was in the 
mind of God to create, namely, the Patriarchs, Israel, the Temple, 
and the name of the Messiah." In Midrash Tehillim. fol. 28, 2, it ifl 
said that the use of the word D*1D in Psalm lxxiv. 2 M teaches us, that 
God created Israel before the foundation of the world.'' The same 
commentary elsewhere says, that "Repentance preceded the creation 
of the world"; and in Sohar Levit., fol. 29, col. 113, the following 
passage occurs : " Before God created the world, he created Repent- 
ance, and said to her, It is my will to create man in such a relation 
to thee, that, when he returns to thee from his transgressions, thou 
shalt be ready to forgive his transgressions, and to make expiation 
for them. : ' 

* That this was the meaning of the Apostle appears from the 
verses which immediately follow those quoted above : "For he [Abra- 
ham] had confident hope of that which was past hope, that he should 
be the father of many nations, according to the declaration. Thus will 
thy offspring be. And, not being weak in faith, he did not regard his 
own body then dead, he being about a hundred years old, nor the 
deadness of Sarah's womb ; nor had he any doubt or mistrust about 
the promise of God.''' 

Compare also Hebrews xi. 19, where, in reference to the birth of 
Isaac, Abraham is said to have received him, M figuratively speaking 
from the dead." 

25 



240 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

the father of many nations, spoke of the things 
which were not, as though they were. 

Using language in the manner which has beer, 
illustrated, our Saviour spoke, in his last prayer 
with his disciples, on the night before his death, of 
the glory which he had with God before the world 
was. 

" When Jesus had thus spoken, he raised his 
eyes to heaven and said : — 

"Father! the hour has come. Glorify thy Son, 
that thy Son may glorify thee, — through the 
power that thou hast granted him over all men, 
to give to all those whom thou hast given him 
eternal life. And this is eternal life, to know thee, 
the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou 
hast sent. I have glorified thee on earth. I have 
finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 
And now, Father! glorify thou me with thyself, 
with that glory which I had with thee before the 
world was." * 

Afterwards, in speaking of his disciples, our 
Saviour says : " The glory which thou hast given 
me, I have given them " ; f words implying that 
the glory which he had with the Father was such 
as might be conferred on men ; and such as, by 
constituting them his Apostles, he had enabled 
them to attain. 

" Father ! " he continues, " I desire for those 
whom thou hast given me, that where I am they 
also may be with me, so that they may behold my 

* John xvii. 1-5. t Ibid., verse 22 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 24^ 

glory, which thou gavest me, for thou didst love 
me before the foundation of the world." * 

The character and purport of these expressions 
of Jesus are explained by what has been said. A 
principal object of our Saviour in the language of 
this prayer, as well as throughout the discourse 
which precedes it, was to strengthen the minds of 
his Apostles to meet that fearful trial of their faith 
which was close at hand, and to prepare them for 
their approaching separation from him. He uses, 
in consequence, the most forcible modes of speech, 
in order to produce the deepest impression. He 
desired, by the whole weight of his authority, by 
every feeling of affection and awe, by language 
the most pregnant and of the highest import, and 
by figures too strong and solemn ever to be for- 
gotten, to make them feel his connection, and 
their own connection, with God. Their teacher, 
their master, their friend, was the special messen- 
ger of God, distinguished by his favor beyond all 
other men ; and in this favor they shared, as his 
followers. He was, in the Oriental style, " one 
with God" in the work in which he had been 
engaged; and they, in like manner, were to be one 
with God and him. God had from eternity re- 
garded him with love ; and they were like objects 
of God's love.f They were hereafter to behold in 
heaven the consummate glory of him, who before 
the close of another day was to be exposed to the 

* John xvii. 24. 

f " — that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast 
loved them as thou hast loved me." John xvii. 23. 



244a 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



mockery of the Roman soldiers, to suffer the oat- 
rages of an infuriated mob, and to expire by a 
death as ignominious as it was cruel. 

Having furnished the key to passages of this 
kind, of which there are not many, I will notice 
particularly but one other. John viii. 52, 53, 56 - 
58 : " The Jews said to Jesus, Now we are sure 
that you are possessed by a daemon. Abraham 
died, and the Prophets ; and you say, "Whoever 
obeys my teaching will never taste of death. Are 
you greater than our father Abraham, who died ? 
And the Prophets died. Whom do you make 
yourself to be ? Jesus answered, Your fa- 
ther Abraham exulted that he might see my day ; 
and he saw it, and rejoiced. Then the Jews said 
to him, You are not yet fifty years old ; and have 
you seen Abraham ? Jesus said to them, Truly, 
truly I tell you, Before Abraham was born, I was 
He." 

The rendering of the Common Version, " Before 
Abraham was, I am," is without meaning, — the 
present tense, " I am," being connected with the 
mention of past time, " before Abraham was " ; 
and this circumstance has doubtless assisted in 
producing the belief that the words express a 
mystery. But our Saviour says that Abraham 
saw his day, that is, the times of the Messiah. 
This declaration no one understands verbally, and 
there is as little reason for giving a verbal mean- 
ing to that under consideration. In the explana- 
tion of it two things are to be attended to. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 243 

In the first place, after the words eyco eJ/x/, ren- 
dered in the Common Version, " I am," we must 
understand 6 Xpiajos, "the Messiah"; as is evi- 
dent from two preceding passages in the same dis- 
course. In verse 24, Jesus says, with the same 
ellipsis, " Unless you believe that I am [that is, that 
lam the Messiah], you will die in your sins " ; and 
in verse 28 he tells the Jews, " When you have 
raised on high [crucified] the Son of Man, then 
you will know that I am" meaning, that I am the 
Messiah. The same ellipsis occurs repeatedly in 
the Gospels and Acts ; as, for instance, in Mark 
xiii. 6 and Luke xxi. 8 we find the words, " Many 
will come in my name, saying I am " ; while in 
Matthew xxiv. 5 the ellipsis is supplied, " Many 
will come in my name, saying, I am the Messiah." 
Other examples are referred to below.* 

This apparently strange omission of the predi- 
cate of so important a proposition may, I think, be 
thus explained. The Messiah was expected by 
the Jews as one who, placing himself at the head 
of the nation, would deliver them from the tyran- 
ny under which they were suffering. Equally to 
Herod, the ruler of Galilee, and to the Roman pro- 
curator of Judaea, an individual, publicly announ- 
cing himself as the Messiah, must have appeared 
a daring rebel, exciting the nation to revolt. The 
subject was one about which the Jews must have 
communed together with the feelings of conspira- 
tors ; and in discussing it, they would use imper- 



* Acts xiii. 25 (comp. John iii. 28) ; John iv. 26 ; xiii. 19. 
25* 



244 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

feet and ambiguous language, indicating, rather 
than expressing, their meaning. Even when dan- 
ger was not feared, a certain degree of secrecy 
might be affected, and there might be a disposi- 
tion to employ terms the full significance of which 
would be understood only by those who felt with 
the speaker. Upon the appearance of Jesus, the 
multitude being excited by his miracles and preach- 
ing, and the intimations concerning his character, 
the inquiry arose among them, whether he were 
the Messiah. The question was often asked, we 
may suppose, eagerly, but cautiously, " Is it he ? " 
Ovtus eari, ; — not broadly and rashly, " Is he the 
Messiah ? " and a corresponding answer returned, 
'Earl, « He is," — Ov/c eari, « He is not." I have 
adverted to the dangerous nature of the subject, as 
connected w T ith the purpose of revolt against the 
Roman power. The mere fact, however, of its 
being one of universal interest, on which the 
thoughts of men were strongly bent, may be alone 
sufficient to account for the use of abbreviated 
expressions to convey a meaning that every one 
was ready to apprehend. Still, the predicate of 
the proposition we are considering being sup- 
pressed, and the language, in consequence, being 
in itself wholly ambiguous, this manner of speak- 
ing might be adopted by Christ for the purpose of 
at once intimating his claims to be the Messiah, 
and leaving his meaning in some degree uncertain. 
Thus in the present discourse, when he tells the 
Jews (verse 24), " Unless you believe that I am He, 
you will die in your sins " ; they ask in return, 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 245 

" Who are you ? " The use, therefore, of this 
mode of expression corresponded to that reserve as 
to openly and explicitly avowing himself to be the 
Messiah, which the expectations and feelings of 
the Jews compelled him to maintain till the clos- 
ing scenes of his ministry.* 

In the next place, the verb eifit is here to be un- 
derstood as having the force of the perfect tense, 
that is, as denoting, literally or figuratively, a state 
of being, commenced at a distant time, and con- 
tinued to the present. It is thus elsewhere used 
in St. John's Gospel. " Have I been [verbally, 
Am I] so long with you, and yet have you not 
known me, Philip ? " f But such is our use of 
language, that this meaning is here to be expressed 
in English by the imperfect tense, " I was." If we 
should say, " Before Abraham was born, I have 
been," the idea of uninterrupted continuance of 
being to the present time is so far from being con- 
veyed, that it is rather excluded. 

The full meaning of Jesus, then, was this : Be- 

* It may be objected to this account, that the Jews of Jerusalem 
are represented m the seventh chapter of John's Gospel as explicitly 
discussing the question, whether Jesus were or were not the Messiah. 
(See verses 26, 27, 31, 41, 42.) I answer, that it is not necessary to 
suppose that the caution of the Jews respecting the subject in ques- 
tion was always maintained. It might disappear in the heat of con- 
troversy, and it gave way, without doubt, to the excitement of strong 
feelings; as when the multitude wished to compel Jesus to place 
himself at their head, as their king (John vi. 15) ; and upon his tri- 
umphant entry into Jerusalem, just before his crucifixion. It is suf- 
ficient for the purpose of explaining our Saviour's language, if the 
mode of expression he adopted were common. 

t John xiv. 9. 



246 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

fore Abraham was born, I was the Messiah ; that 
is, I was designated by God as the Messiah. The 
words cannot be understood verbally, because " th^ 
Messiah " was the title of one bearing an office 
which did not exist till it was assumed by Jesus 
on earth. Before Abraham, there was no Messiah 
except in the purpose of God. The language used 
by Christ is of the same figurative character with 
that which we find at the commencement of the 
prophecy of Jeremiah, as addressed to him by God 
(i. 5) : "Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew 
thee ; and before thou earnest forth at thy birth, I 
sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet to 
the nations." 

We will now consider some passages of a dif- 
ferent character. In his conversation with Nico- 
demus, our Saviour says (John iii. 12, 13): "If I 
tell you earthly things and you believe not, how 
will you believe should I tell you heavenly things ? 
And no one has ascended to heaven, except him 
who has descended from heaven, the Son of Man, 
who is in heaven." 

Heaven being considered by the Jews as the 
local habitation of the Deity, " to ascend to 
heaven" is here a figure used to denote the be- 
coming acquainted with the purposes and will of 
God, with things invisible and spiritual, " heav- 
enly things " ; " to be in heaven " is to pos- 
sess such acquaintance ; and " to descend from 
heaven," or u to come from heaven," is to come 
from God. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 247 

In this sense the expression "to descend from 
heaven " is used by our Saviour in his discourse 
with the Jews, recorded in the sixth chapter of 
John's Gospel. The Jews, whom he had disap- 
pointed the day before in their attempt "to make 
him their king," or, in other words, to compel him 
to assume publicly the character of the Messiah, 
according to their conception of it, had now col- 
lected about him with very different feelings. They 
were disposed to disparage his miracles in com- 
parison with those of Moses. He had fed five 
thousand men with a few loaves and fishes ; but 
Moses, they said, quoting the Old Testament, 
" had given them," the Jews, " bread from heaven 
to eat."* In what follows, this expression is used 
figuratively by our Saviour, to denote that his doc- 
trine came from God, or, to express the same idea 
in other words, that he himself came from God. 
It was usual for him to draw his figures from 
something which had just been said, or some pres- 
ent object or recent event. " Moses," he says, 
" gave you not the bread from heaven " ; meaning 
that Moses had not given them a religion like his 
own, adapted to supply all their spiritual wants ; 
" but my Father," he continues, " is giving you the 
true bread from heaven ; for the bread of God is 
that which is now descending from heaven and 
giving life to the world." f By " the bread of God 
which gives life to the world," our Saviour here 
means his doctrines, his religion; and with this, by 

* John vi. 31. t Verses 32, 33. 



248 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

an obvious figure, common in the New Testa- 
ment, he afterwards identifies himself. " I am the 
bread of life ; he who comes to me will never hun- 
ger, and he who has faith in me will never thirst."* 
" I have descended from heaven, not to do my own 
will, but the will of Him who sent me";! — that 
is, I who bring this religion from heaven have no 
other purpose but to perform the will of God. 

The Jews, that is, some of the Jews, his enemies, 
carped, as usual, at his words. " Then the Jews 
murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread 
which has descended from heaven. And they said, 
Is not this man Jesus, the son of Joseph ? one 
whose father and mother we know? What, then, 
does he mean by saying, I have descended from 
heaven ? " J We have no reason to suppose that 
they understood him as meaning that he, being a 
man, had descended from heaven; or that he, being 
a pre-existent spirit, had assumed a human form. 
Their objection was to the absolute authority 
which this man, Jesus, the son, as they called 
him, of Joseph and Mary, claimed as the delegate 
of God. They had the same feeling as was shown 
by his fellow-townsmen of Nazareth, when they 
asked : " Is not this man the carpenter, the son of 
Mary, and kinsman of James and Joses and Judas 
and Simon ? " § 

In verse 62 of this chapter, there is a passage 
thus rendered in the Common Version : " What 

* John vi. 35. t Verse 38. 

X Verses 41, 42. $ Mark vi. 3. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 249 

and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up 
where he was before ? " It has been thought to 
refer to his ascension to heaven, and to imply that 
he existed in heaven before his appearance on 
earth. In order to understand it, we must attend 
to its connection. 

In the preceding part of the discourse, our Sav- 
iour had spoken of his religion as bread or food 
descending from heaven, and having figuratively 
identified himself with his religion, he describes 
this food as giving eternal life. "Truly, truly I 
tell you, He who puts his trust in me has eternal 
life. I am the bread of life ; your fathers ate the 
manna in the desert and died ; but if any one eat 
of this bread which is descending from heaven, he 
shall not die. I am the bread of life which has 
descended from heaven ; if any one eat of this 
bread, he shall live for ever."* As food is the 
means of prolonging the natural life, so the re- 
ligion of Christ was the means of enjoying eternal 
life. Metaphors of a similar kind, derived from 
taking food, and applied to the partaking of what 
is desirable, the being compelled to endure what is 
painful, or the experiencing the consequences, good 
or evil, of our own conduct, occur elsewhere in the 
Scriptures, and are probably common in most lan- 
guages. In such metaphors, however, as well as 
in other figurative modes of speech, the Oriental 
style passes beyond the limits within which we are 
confined. Thus in Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom is per- 

* John vi. 47-51. 



250 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 

sonified and represented as saying : " Those who 
eat me shall yet be hungry, and those who drink 
me shall yet be thirsty."* Thus too in the Tal- 
mud, R. Hillel, who asserted that the Messiah had 
already come, is said to have been opposed by 
other doctors, who maintained that "the Israelites 
were yet to eat the days of the Messiah." He, on 
the contrary, affirmed that " they had eaten their 
Messiah in the days of Hezekiah."f 

But in the words following those last quoted 
from our Saviour's discourse, there is an accession 
to the figure. It becomes the vehicle for express- 
ing a new fact. He says : " But the bread which 
I will give is my body, which I will give for the 
life of the world." In this language, he refers, J 
conceive, to his own death. He goes on: " Unless 
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his 
blood, you have not life within you " ; and he 
repeats and insists upon this strong figure. When 
he thus describes the food of life, of which his fol- 
lowers were to partake, as his own flesh and his 
own blood, the only purpose, I believe, of this am- 
plification of the figure is to show that the bless- 
ings to be enjoyed through him were to be pur- 
chased by his violent death. It was, I think, so 
understood, at least partially, by those who heard 
him. His object was to destroy all hope of his 
establishing a splendid temporal kingdom, such as 
the Jews had been expecting ; and thus to repress 

* Chapter xxiv. 21. 

t See Wetstein's note on John vi. 51. [See also Nojes % note on 
Ezekiel iii. 1.] 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 251 

all worldly motives in those who were inclined to 
be his followers. Their Master was not to be a con- 
queror and a monarch, as they might have hoped, 
dispensing honors and favors to his adherents and 
countrymen ; the sacrifice of his own life was re- 
quired, a bloody death was to be suffered by him, 
in order that his followers might enjoy those bless- 
ings of which he was the minister. So, as I have 
said, he appears to have been understood; and 
many of his followers in consequence deserted him. 

" Thus taught Jesus in a synagogue at Caper- 
naum. Then many of his disciples, when they 
heard him, said, This is hard teaching ; who can 
listen to it ? But Jesus, knowing in his own 
mind that his disciples were murmuring on ac- 
count of his discourse, said to them, Does this 
give you offence ? What, then, if you should see 
the Son of Man ascending where he was before ?"* 

The meaning is, Does it offend you that I speak 
of my death ? What, then, if you shall see me 
rising from the dead, and appearing where I was 
before ? When Jesus made mention of his death, 
he on other occasions connected it with the predic- 
tion that he should rise from the dead. To his 
resurrection he alludes as a signal proof to be 
given of the divinity of his mission, but never 
elsewhere to his ascension.f After the words 

* John vi. 59 - 62. 

t See an explanation of this verse in Simpson's Essays on the 
Language of Scripture. [For a somewhat different explanation, 
taken from Mr. Norton's Notes on the Gospels, see Appendix, 
Note A.] 

26 



252 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

which have been quoted, he goes on, contrary in 
some degree to his usual custom, to explain in 
part the figurative language which he had used : 
" What is spiritual," he says, " gives life. The 
flesh profits nothing " ; — that is, my flesh would 
profit you nothing; — "the words which I speak 
to you are spiritual, and give life." * 

It has been contended by some modern German 
divines, who appear themselves to regard Christ 
merely as a human teacher, that he was believed 
or represented by his Apostles, if not by himself, 
to have been a pre-existent being, the Logos of 
God. They appeal, of course, to some of the 
same passages which are brought forward by 
Trinitarians and others in support of this doctrine, 
and in proof of the deity of Christ in which it is 
implied. But we may here make the general 
remark, that if the Apostles had regarded their 
Master as an incarnation of a great pre-existent 
spirit, far superior to man, they would not have 
left us to gather their belief from a doubtful inter- 
pretation of a few scattered passages. No fact 
concerning him, personally, would have been put 
forward in their writings with more prominence 
and distinctness. None would have been oftener 
brought into notice. None would have more 
strongly affected their imaginations and feelings. 
None would have been adapted more to affect 
their disciples. St. Matthew would not have 
written an account of his Master, as it must be 

* John vi. 63. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 25S 

conceded that he has, without anywhere expressly 
declaring the fact. The Apostles would have left 
us in as little doubt concerning their belief of it, as 
concerning their belief of his crucifixion and resur- 
rection. 



CLASS V. 



Passages relating- to the divine authority of Christ 
as the minister of God, to the manifestation of 
divine power in his miracles and in the establish- 
ment of Christianity, and to Christianity itself 
spoken of under the name of Christ, and consid- 
ered as a promulgation of the laws of God's moral 
government, — which have been misinterpreted as 
proving that Christ himself is God. 

For example : there are two passages in the 
prophecies of the Old Testament which speak of a 
messenger as going before Jehovah to prepare his 
way and announce his coming. They are : — 

Isaiah xl. 3. " A voice is crying, Prepare ye in 
the waste the way of Jehovah, make straight in 
the desert a road for our God." 

Malachi iii. 1. " Lo! I will send my messenger, 
and he shall prepare the way before me." 

These passages are in the Gospels applied to 
John the Baptist, the precursor of Christ.* 

* Matthew iii. 3 ; xi. 10 ; Mark i. 2, 3 ; Luke i. 76 ; iii. 4 ; vii. 27 
John i. 23. 



254 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



The angel, who, according to the narrative in the 
first chapter of Luke's Gospel, announced the birth 
of John, is likewise represented as saying to Zach- 
ariah : — 

"And many of the sons of Israel will he turn 
back to the Lord, their God ; and he will go be- 
fore him w T ith the spirit and the power of Elijah."* 

From these passages, it is inferred that Christ is 
Jehovah. But they admit of an easy explanation. 

In conformity to the rude apprehensions of the 
Jews, we often find in the Bible, particularly in 
the Old Testament, strong, and, in themselves con- 
sidered, harsh figures applied to God, which are 
borrowed from the properties, passions, and ac- 
tions of man, and even of the inferior animals. 
Among them is the common figure by which God, 
in giving any peculiar manifestation of his power, 
is represented as changing his place, and coming 
to the scene where his power is displayed. But if 
we except the case of miraculous operations ex- 
erted directly upon the minds of men, the power 
of God must be manifested by means of sensible 
objects. It is often represented as exerted through 
the agency of human beings, and other conscious 
ministers of his will. When thus exerted, its 
effects, and the circumstances by which its display 
is attended, are sometimes referred to God as the 
ultimate cause, and sometimes to the immediate 
agent. What is said in one case to be done by an 
angel, or by Moses, or by Christ, or by some other 

* Luke i. 16, 17. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 255 

instrument of God's will, is in another case said 
to be done by God. The power displayed is re- 
garded, according to different modes of conceiving 
the same thing, as appertaining to him or to them. 
God comes, according to the language of Scrip- 
ture, when a commissioned instrument of his will 
appears ; and the precursor of the latter is the pre- 
cursor of God. Thus, too, as the power and good- 
ness of God were displayed in Christ, he might be 
denominated " Immanuel," a name meaning " God 
is with us." * [See Matthew i. 23 ; Isaiah vii. 14] 

* In the usage supposed, there is nothing extraordinary, or foreign 
from our modes of expression. But in the Pentateuch the agent of 
God's will, Moses, is confounded with God himself in a very strange 
and almost inexplicable manner ; which at least illustrates the fact, 
how far we ought to be from insisting upon the bare letter of a pas- 
sage, picked out here and there, in opposition to common sense and 
the general tenor of a writing. 

In Deuteronomy xi. 13-15, Moses is represented as thus address- 
ing the Israelites : — 

" And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently to my 
commandments which I command you this day, to love Jehovah, 
your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your 
soul, that I will give you the rain of your land in its due season, ..... 
and I will send grass in thy fields." 

Instead of "I will give," the Samaritan text, the Septuagint, and 
the Vulgate here read, " He will give " ; but this reading appears 
obviously to have been introduced to remove the difficulty of the 
passage. 

Again, Deuteronomy xxix. 2, 5, 6 : — 

" And Moses called together all Israel, and said to them, I 

have led you forty years in the wilderness ; your clothes have not 
waxen old upon you, nor your shoes waxen old upon your feet ; ye 
have not eaten bread, nor drunk wine nor strong drink; that ye may 
know that I, Jehovah, am your God" 

Here the Samaritan text agrees with the Hebrew ; the Septuagint 
in the Alexandrine manuscript, and the Vulgate and Syriac versions. 
26* 



256 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

In the first part of the discourse of our Saviour 
with the Jews, recorded in the fifth chapter of 
John's Gospel (verses 16-30), which took place 
after he had excited their enmity against him by 
miraculously curing a man on the Sabbath, there 
are expressions as strong as are anywhere used 
concerning his authority as a minister of God, and 
concerning his religion as taught and sanctioned 
by God, as a promulgation of the laws of God's 
moral government. The words of Christ were 
bold and figurative. The style of St. John, who 

alter as in the preceding passage, changing the pronoun of the first 
person for that of the third. 

Once more, Deuteronomy xxxi. 22, 23 : — 

" Moses, then, wrote this song the same day, and taught it the 
children of Israel. 

" And he gave Joshua, the son of Nun, a charge, and said : Be 
strong and of good courage ; for thou shalt bring the children of Is- 
rael into the land which I sware unto them, and I will be with thee." 

Here, to avoid the difficulty, the Septuagint reads, " which the 
Lord sware unto them, and he will be with thee " ; expressly ascrib- 
ing the speech to Moses, as the connection requires, and supplying 
his name, thus : " And Moses charged Joshua." The Vulgate takes 
a different course, ascribing the whole speech to Jehovah, thus : " And 
the Lord charged Joshua." 

The various readings of the Versions evidently deserve no consid- 
eration, as the origin of them is apparent. Whoever may look into 
a number of commentators, unless he be more fortunate than myself, 
will be surprised to find, either that these passages are passed over in 
silence, or that the attempts tc explain them are but slight and un- 
satisfactory. How they are to be explained, or accounted for, is a 
question which it is not here the place to discuss, and one which it 
is not easy to answer. But it may be remarked, that if a passage 
corresponding to them had been found in the discourses of Christ, 
it must have appeared, I think, to a Trinitarian a much strongef 
argument than any that can now be adduced in support of the doc- 
trine of the deity of Christ. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 25? 

has reported them, is in general obscure, except in 
mere narrative ; and the same style appears in his 
own compositions and in the discourses of our 
Saviour as recorded by him, which differ in this 
respect from those given by the other three Evan- 
gelists. It appears probable, therefore, that St. 
John, preserving essentially the thoughts uttered 
by his Master, conformed the language, more or 
less, to his own modes of expression. The pas- 
sage, from these causes, is in the original some- 
what difficult to be understood ; and in the imper- 
fect and erroneous rendering of the Common Ver- 
sion, its bearing and purpose are scarcely to be 
discerned. As in similar cases, the obscurity thus 
spread over it has served to countenance the sup- 
position that it involves some mysterious meaning. 
Yet, even as rendered in the Common Version, the 
passage, so far from affording any proof of the 
deity of Christ, presents only the conception of his 
entire dependence upon God. 

In order to enter into its character and purpose, 
we must consider that the Jews in general, having 
little moral desert to recommend them to the favor 
of God, placed their reliance upon external cere- 
monies ; and among these, there was none to 
which they attached more importance than a su- 
perstitious observance of the Sabbath. The ma- 
jority of the Jews had that enmity toward Christ, 
which the bigots of a false religion always feel 
toward a teacher of the truth, who discloses the 
nothingness and the falsehood of their pretensions. 
As the descendants of Abraham, as performing 



258 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 

" the works of the Law," which in their view were 
little more than the ceremonies of the Law, as 
God's chosen people, they considered themselves 
as holy, and looked upon Christ as a profane here- 
siarch. Their feelings toward him were such as 
in the fifteenth century might have been excited 
among the members of the Romish Church in any 
Catholic country, by one openly teaching, I do not 
say Protestantism, but pure Christianity, the es- 
sential truths of religion and morals, and fearlessly 
reproving the vices, superstitions, and hypocrisy of 
the age. They regarded him, as such a reformer 
would have been regarded, as an enemy of God ; 
for if he were not at enmity with God, they were. 

In opposition to this state of feeling among 
them, our Saviour used the strongest expressions 
to declare, that he was acting wholly under the 
guidance of God, and that his authority was the 
authority of God. It is an obvious remark, though 
it may be worth pointing out, that the expressions 
of the most absolute dependence upon God, and 
the boldest assertions of divine authority, amount 
to the same thing, and occur indiscriminately in his 
discourses. So far as he was a mere instrument 
in the hands of God, so far was his authority iden- 
tical with that of God. These considerations will 
perhaps explain the general character of the pas- 
sage we are considering, which may be thus ren- 
dered : — 

" Upon this the Jews came in pursuit of Jesus 
because he had done thus on the Sabbath. But 
Jesus said to them, As my Father is continually 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 259 

working, so I also work. — Then, for this, the Jews 
were more bent on killing him, because he had not 
only broken the Sabbath, but also had spoken of 
God as particularly his Father, putting himself on 
an equality with God. Then Jesus said to them, 
Truly, truly I tell you, The Son can do nothing of 
himself, but only what he sees his Father doing. 
But what his Father does, the Son also does in 
like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and 
directs him in all that he does, and will direct him 
in greater works than these, to your astonishment. 
For as the Father raises the dead and gives them 
life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. 
Nor does the Father condemn any one, but has 
committed all condemnation to the Son ; that all 
may honor the Son as they honor the Father. He 
who honors not the Son, honors not the Father 
who sent him. Truly, truly I tell you, He who 
hears my words, and puts his trust in Him who 
sent me, has eternal life, and shall not come under 
condemnation, but has passed from death to life. 
Truly, truly I tell you, that the hour is coming, 
and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of 
the Son of God, and those who hear it shall live. 
For as the Father is the fountain of life, so has he 
given to the Son to be the fountain of life ; and 
he has intrusted him with authority to pass con- 
demnation also, because he is the Man. Be not 
astonished at this ; for the hour is coming, when 
all who are in their tombs shall hear his voice, and 
come forth ; those who have done good, to the res- 
urrection of life, and those who have done evil, 1o 



260 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

the resurrection of condemnation. I can do noth- 
ing of myself. I condemn as I am directed, and 
my condemnation is just; for I regard not my own 
will, but the will of Him who sent me." 

We will now attend to some passages in this 
discourse, which require or admit further illustra- 
tion. The Jews, exasperated against Jesus, had 
represented him to themselves as one who impi- 
ously impugned the authority of their Law, hav- 
ing openly manifested his contempt for it by a 
wanton violation of the Sabbath. The immediate 
purport of the first address of our Saviour to them 
may be thus expressed : I am executing the works 
of God, to whom my relation is like that of a son 
to a father ; and as the immediate works of God 
are not suspended from a regard to the rest of the 
Sabbath, neither is there reason that mine should 
be, — " As my Father is continually working, so I 
also work." (Verse 17.) The ultimate object of 
these words was to affirm, in a manner very strik- 
ing, at once from its indirectness and its brevity, 
that he was acting as the minister of God with his 
full approbation and authority. The Jews did not 
familiarly speak of God as their'father ; and when 
Jesus called him " my Father," they understood 
him at once as meaning to express, that his rela- 
tion to God was different from that of all other 
men. They understood, likewise, that he "put 
himself on an equality with God," in implying 
that he was no more bound by a regard to the law 
of the Sabbath than God, by whose authority he 
acted. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 261 

There is nothing, I think, in what follows, that 
requires particular explanation, till we come to the 
words : " As the Father raises the dead and gives 
them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he 
will." (Verse 21.) "With $©17, "life," in the New 
Testament, the idea of happiness is associated. 
" Eternal life," for example, denotes eternal hap- 
piness. The meaning of Christ, then, in these 
words, may be thus expressed : The Father raises 
the dead to a new and happy state of being ; but 
in this work he has appointed the Son as his min- 
ister, who by his religion affords the means of se- 
curing this blessedness, which will be conferred on 
all his followers without exception, as if by his 
own act and will. 

" Nor does the Father condemn any, but has 
committed all condemnation to the Son." (Verse 
22.) This language, it is obvious, must on any 
supposition be regarded as figurative. What was 
meant by it is, that Christ, being the teacher of 
that religion through which the laws and sanc- 
tions of God's moral government are made known, 
might be regarded as the minister of God appoint- 
ed to pronounce the sentence of condemnation 
on all exposed to it. He condemned only those 
whom God condemned, and he condemned ali 
those whom God condemned. It is as such a 
minister that he afterward represents himself, when 
he says, " I condemn as I am directed." At the 
close of the discourse (verse 45), dropping this 
figure, he represents God in person as the judge 
who passes sentence. w Think not," he says, " that 



262 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

I shall accuse you to the Father. There is one 
who is accusing you, Moses, in whom you have 
trusted." In another discourse (ch. xii. 47, 48) he 
explains what is meant by him when he speaks of 
judging and condemning men. It signifies that 
men will be judged and condemned according to 
those laws and sanctions of moral conduct which 
he has made known to them in his religion : " If 
any one who hears my words regards them not, I 
do not pass sentence on him ; for I have not come 
to pass sentence on the world, but to save the 
world. There is a judge for him who rejects me 
and receives not my words ; — the doctrine I 
have taught, that will pass sentence on him here- 
after." 

In the discourse before us, our Saviour used the 
words on which we are remarking in reference to 
the Jews, his enemies, who considered themselves 
as secure of not being condemned by God, how- 
ever their characters and conduct might be con- 
demned by Jesus. It will be, he gives them to 
understand, as if all condemnation were committed 
to the Son. 

" Truly, truly I tell you, He who hears my words, 
and puts his trust in Him who sent me, has eter- 
nal life, and shall not come under condemnation, 
but has passed from death to life." (Verse 24.) 
The punishment of sin is often represented in the 
New Testament under the figure of death. Death 
is regarded as the most severe of human punish- 
ments, and commonly apprehended as the greatest 
of the inevitable evils of our present state ; except 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 263 

when this apprehension is done away by the faith 
and hopes of a Christian. To his view, indeed, it 
changes its aspect. To him it is a deliverance 
from the thraldom of this life, and a rapid and 
glorious advance in that course of progression and 
blessedness on which he has entered. It is no 
interruption of that eternal life, which he has 
commenced. According to the common appre 
hension of death, iC he shall never die." But t r 
the sinner death appears under an opposite aspect 
The natural dread of it is not alleviated by any 
rational hope of a happier life to follow it. On 
the contrary, it is the commencement of that state 
in which the tendencies of his evil dispositions will 
be more fully developed, and their consequences 
more bitterly felt. Now to the dispensations of 
the future life Christ always refers as the great 
sanctions of his religion. Death, then, being the 
termination of all sinful gratifications, and the 
commencement of future punishment, for this rea- 
son, in connection with those before mentioned, is 
employed, by an obvious figure, to represent the 
whole punishment of sin ; and those who lie ex- 
posed to this punishment are, by a figure equally 
obvious, spoken of as already "dead"; as the good 
arc spoken of as already in possession of " eternal 
life." Thus, too, we may perceive why death, pre- 
senting itself under such opposite aspects to the 
one class and to the other, is represented, though 
common to all, as the punishment of the wicked. 

" Truly, truly I tell you, that the hour is coming, 
and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice oi 

27 



264 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TEST MVIENT. 

the Son of God, and those who hear it shall live." 
(Verse 25.) The discourse of our Saviour has 
been misunderstood, from inattention to the causes 
why sinners are metaphorically called by him 
" dead." It has been thought to be on account of 
the deadness of their moral principles and affec- 
tions. Hence some commentators have supposed 
that there is in this discourse a series of harsh 
transitions, from the literally dead who are raised 
to life by the Father, to the morally dead spoken 
of in the words last quoted, and then again to the 
proper dead "who are in their tombs." Others 
have explained the words just quoted as referring 
to the literally dead who were raised to life by 
our Saviour during his ministry, though no corre- 
sponding meaning can be put upon his language 
immediately preceding, in which he speaks of 
those who have " passed from death to life," and 
the explanation is, at the same time, foreign from 
the purpose and connection of the discourse, and 
inconsistent with the antithetical opposition which 
runs through it between the two general classes, 
of the dead, and of those who have eternal life. 
Others still, by a far more extravagant interpreta- 
tion, have understood Jesus, when he speaks of 
those in their tombs who shall hear his voice and 
live, to refer only to the morally dead, and conse- 
quently to describe only a moral resurrection. The 
true meaning of the words we are considering I 
conceive to be, that Christ had come to call sin- 
ners to reformation ; that those who lay exposed to 
death with all its fearful consequences^ " the dead," 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 265 

as they are figuratively called, would hear his 
voice ; and that those who listened to it would be 
delivered from death as an evil, and have only to 
look forward to life and blessedness. 

" The Father has intrusted him with authority 
to pass condemnation also, because he is the 
Man." (Verse 27.) The rendering of the last 
w r ords needs explanation. In the Oriental lan- 
guages, the term " son of man " was used simply 
as equivalent to " man." Of this, as every one 
knows, there are many examples in the Old and 
New Testament. In the Syriac version of the 
New Testament, this periphrasis not unfrequently 
occurs where only the word avOpcoiros, " man," is 
used in the original. In this, which is, I conceive, 
the only sense of the term, it was used by Christ 
concerning himself. " The Son of Man " means 
nothing more than " the Man." Why he so des- 
ignated himself has not, I think, been satisfactorily 
explained. It may be accounted for by the state 
of things which has been already referred to.* 
The coming of the Messiah was a dangerous topic 
of discourse. He would, consequently, be desig- 
nated by ambiguous titles ; and such language 
would naturally be used as, " When the man [the 
Son of Man] comes"; " the man will deliver us." 
Hence this term, I imagine, came to signify the 
Messiah, but somewhat ambiguously. The un- 
certainty of its application might be increased, 
when our Saviour entered on his ministry ; for he, 
simply as an individual exciting such strong and 

* See before, pp. 243 - 24* 



266 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 

general interest and curiosity by his miracles and 
doctrine, would, we may easily suppose, be desig- 
nated as " the Man."* A term which thus strongly 
intimated, but did not directly express, his claim to 
be that great minister of God whom the Jews had 
been expecting, was well suited to the circum- 
stances in which he was placed; and was, in con- 
sequence, adopted by him as a title appropriate to 
himself. With these views, I would not however 
object to the common rendering, " the Son of 
Man," if it be so familiar as to make a change 
unpleasant, except in passages like that before us, 
in which, by giving a verbal instead of a true ren- 
dering, the sense is obscured. " God," says our 
Saviour in this passage, " has intrusted me with 
authority to pass condemnation, because I am the 
Man " ; intending by this to express, in language 
which somewhat veiled his meaning, that he was 
that last minister of God whom the Jews had 
hoped for under the name of " the Messiah," or 
" the Anointed." Messiah, or Anointed, it may be 
observed, is a common name, as well as Man; and 
the former term, equally with the latter, could be- 
come the designation of a particular individual 
only from the manner of its application.! 

* We may observe an analogous use of language in the First Epis- 
tle of John, in which Christ is designated simply by the pronoun " He," 
without any previous mention of his name to which the pronoun can 
refer. See I John ii. 12 ; hi. 5, 7, 16. [Compare Noyes's note on 
Job v. 1.] 

t [Mr. Norton, in his Translation of the Gospels, has given a very 
different rendering of the 27th and 28th verses of this chapter, as fol- 
lows : " And he has intrusted him with authority to pass condemn* 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 267 

" Be not astonished at this ; for the hour is coin- 
ing in which all who are in their tombs shall hear 
his voice, and come forth ; those who have done 
good, to the resurrection of life, and those who 
have done evil, to the resurrection of condemna- 
tion." (Verses 28, 29.) The meaning of our Saviour 
may be thus expressed : Be not astonished at what 
I have told you, that God has appointed me as 
his minister, to announce whom he approves, and 
whom he condemns, and to afford to all the means 

tion also. Because he is a son of man, marvel not at this ; for the 
hour is coming," &c. 

His note on the passage is this : — 

" The meaning is, Do not marvel that I, though only a man, claim 
such connection with God, or that I claim to be charged with such a 
ministry by him, and to be intrusted with such authority from him, — 
for the character of my ministry may be announced in a manner still 
more striking. All men are, as it were, to be called from their tombs 
by my voice, and to rise to blessedness or to condemnation, as they 
have obeyed or disobeyed those laws which I teach. 

" In connecting the words in the manner shown in the translation 
which I have given, their meaning is obvious, and suitable to the 
whole tenor of the discourse. As regards the more common render- 
ing, 'He has given him authority to execute judgment also, because 
he is the Son of Man,' or ' because he is a son of man,' I know of 
no satisfactory or probable explanation of the latter clause. The 
absence of the article in Greek before the words rendered ' son of 
man' forbids their being rendered 'the Son of Man.' The con- 
nection of the clauses which I have adopted is sanctioned by the 
Syriac translator of the New Testament, by Chrysostom, Theophy- 
lact, and Euthymius Zigabenus. 

"John could not have inverted the order of the clauses without 
producing ambiguity, on account of the recurrence of on, and its 
common use after tovto as an explanatory particle." 

The paragraph in the text has not been cancelled, it being desira- 
ble to retain the remarks on the meaning of the term " Son of Man," 
which are not affected by the rendering of this particular passage.] 
27* 



268 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

of passing from death to life ; — Be not astonished 
at this, for, in truth, the future condition of all will 
be determined by their obedience or disobedience 
to the laws of my religion, which are the laws of 
God. They shall be judged by this standard, as 
if they were called from their tombs by my voice 
to be judged in person by me. This mode of un- 
Jerstandi ng the passage will be still further illus- 
trated by what follows. 

It is a common figure in the New Testament to 
speak of Christ personally, when his religion, under 
some one of its aspects, effects, or relations, is in- 
tended ; and this is sometimes done when the ex- 
pression is such as our use of language does not 
allow. St. Paul addresses the Colossians, accord- 
ing to a verbal rendering, thus (ii. 6, 7) : " As, then, 
ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord, walk in 
him, rooted and grounded in him." He exhorts 
them (iii. 13) to forgive each other, " as Christ had 
forgiven them " ; not referring to any forgiveness 
from Christ in person, but to the forgiveness of 
their past sins upon their becoming sincere Chris- 
tians. He says to the churches addressed in the 
Epistle to the Ephesians, churches to which Jesus 
had never preached (iv. 20, 21) : " You have not so 
learned Christ, since you have heard him and been 
taught by him as the truth is in Jesus." He speaks 
to the Romans of the " spirit of Christ," that is, 
"the spirit of Christianity," dwelling in them ; and 
the expression, "that Christ may dwell in your 
hearts," is elsewhere (Ephesians iii. 17) used by 



EXPLANATION? OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 269 

him. He writes to the Corinthians (1 Ep. xv. 18) 
of those "who have fallen asleep in Christ," mean- 
ing, those who have died " being Christians"; for 
"to be in Christ" is a common phrase in his Epis- 
tles for " being a Christian." He tells the Philip- 
pians (i. 8), " God is my witness how earnestly I 
love you all ev airXayxy ^ Xptarov Irjcrov" words 
which, from the difference in our modes of expres- 
sion, do not admit of a verbal translation into our 
language ; but the meaning of which is " with 
Christian tenderness." Again he says to them 
(i. 21), " For to me life is Christ, and death is 
gain " ; that is, " My life is devoted to the cause of 
Christ, to the promotion of his religion." In the 
same Epistle (iii. 8) are these words : " I have suf- 
fered the loss of all these things, counting them 
but as refuse, that I might win Christ " ; where the 
expression, " to win Christ," means " to secure the 
blessings of Christianity." To the Galatians, he 
writes (iii. 27, 28), il Whoever of you has been 
baptized to Christ, has put on Christ " ; that is, 
as appears from the connection, u is entitled to all 
the privileges of a Christian." The Apostle pro- 
ceeds: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither 
slave nor freeman, neither male nor female ; but 
you are all one in Christ Jesus," — " you are all 
on an equality as Christians." So also the author 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of "Jesus 
Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever," 
intending by those words to express the unchange- 
abl 3ness of Christian truth.* 

* [Hebrews xiii. 8 ; compare verse 9.] 



270 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

I have perhaps brought together more example? 
than are necessary, of a common form of expres- 
sion. Our Saviour himself uses language in a 
similar manner. By a figure of speech, he refers 
to himself personally the effects of his religion, the 
divine power exerted in its establishment, and the 
operation of those laws of God's moral govern- 
ment which it announces. Thus he says (Mat- 
thew x. 34) : " Think not that I came to bring 
peace on earth. I came not to bring peace, but 
a sword." So also in Luke (xii. 49) : " I came to 
cast fire on the earth ; and what would I, since 
it has already been kindled ? " In these passages, 
every one understands that our Saviour speaks ot 
the effects of his religion, and not of anything to 
be accomplished by his immediate agency. In 
like manner, when he declares that he has come 
" to save the world," he refers to the power of his 
religion in delivering men from ignorance, error, 
sin, and their attendant evils. "For God," it is 
said, " did not send his Son into the world to con- 
demn the world, but that through him the world 
may be saved. He who has faith in him is not 
condemned ; but he who has not faith is already 
under condemnation, for not having faith in the 
only Son of God. And the ground of condemna- 
tion is this, that, the light having come into the 
world, men preferred the darkness to the light; for 
their deeds were evil."* This passage shows how 
men are to be saved by Christ, namely, by their 
own act in believing and obeying him ; and is 

• John iii. 17-19. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 271 

also one of those which explain what is meant by 
his figurative language when he speaks of judging 
and condemning men. 

" I am the resurrection and the life."* In what 
sense our Saviour used these sublime words may 
appear from what immediately follows. " He who 
has faith in me, though he die, will live; and who- 
ever lives and has faith in me w r ill never die." 
Christ is the resurrection and the life, because 
through faith in him, through a practical belief of 
the truths which he taught, eternal life is to be 
obtained. Thus he afterwards says (John xii. 49, 
50): "For I have not spoken from myself; but 
He who sent me, the Father himself, has given me 
in charge what I should enjoin, and what I should 
teach ; and I know that what he has charged 
me with is eternal life"; that is, it affords the 
means of attaining eternal life. 

He says to the Jews, in reference to those Gen- 
tiles who would embrace his religion (John x. 16) : 
" I have other sheep, which are not of this fold ; 
those too I must bring in, and they will hearken 
to my voice, and there will be one flock and one 
shepherd." In these words he does not mean to 
assert his own personal agency in the conversion 
of the Gentiles; they were not literally to hear his 
voice ; but they were to be converted by the 
preaching of his religion. There is a similar fig- 
ure in the words (John xii. 32), " And I, when I 
shall be raised up from the earth, shall draw al] 
men to me." 

* John xi. 2k 



272 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

In his most affecting conversation with his dis- 
ciples, the evening before his crucifixion, he tells 
them (John xiv. 18, 19), " I will not leave you 
fatherless. I am coming to you again. A little 
while only, and the world will see me no more ; 
but you will see me. Inasmuch as I am blessed, 
you will be blessed also." Here, as I have before 
had occasion to explain, our Saviour refers, not to 
any personal presence with his disciples, but to his 
presence with them in the power of his religion, 
his presence to their minds and hearts. 

In other instances, Jesus uses what may be 
technically called " an equivalent figure," by which 
I mean figurative language not intended to corre- 
spond to the real state of things except so far as 
to produce an effect upon the mind equivalent to 
what that might produce if distinctly apprehended. 
Thus he tells his disciples (John xiv. 2, 3), " There 
are many rooms in my Father's house. Were it 
not so, should I have told you that I am going 
there to prepare a place for you ? And when I 
have gone and prepared a place for you, I am 
coming again, and will take you to myself, that 
where I am, you may be also." When Jesus thus 
speaks of preparing a place for his disciples, and, 
after preparation, returning to take them with him, 
he uses figurative terms which do not admit oi 
being transformed into literal. The general effect 
of the language, its aggregate significance, if I 
may so speak, is alone to be regarded. The 
meaning is, Your future blessedness will be as 
great, and is as certain, as if it were prepared f:>r 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 273 

you by me, your Master and friend, and you were 
assured that I should return in person to conduct 
you to it. 

In a similar manner we are to understand an- 
other declaration of Jesus, already noticed, which 
has been erroneously explained (Matthew xviii. 19, 
20) : " Again, I say to you, If two of you agree on 
earth concerning everything which they ask, their 
prayers will be granted by my Father in Heaven. 
For where two or three come together as my 
disciples, there am I among them." By this, as I 
have said,* our Saviour intended that the prayers 
of his followers for the promotion of his cause, for 
the guidance and aid necessary to them as his min- 
isters, would be granted as if they were his own, 
as if he himself were praying with them. 

In order to explain some other passages in which 
our Saviour speaks figuratively of his personal 
agency, it is necessary to attend to a new con- 
sideration. The Jews had been accustomed to 
designate the dispensation which they expected 
from their Messiah as " the kingdom of the Mes- 
siah," or " the kingdom of God," or " of Heaven." 
This language, though the conceptions which they 
had attached to it were erroneous, was such as, 
taken in a figurative sense, might well describe the 
Christian dispensation. It was adopted, therefore, 
by our Saviour, and after him by his Apostles; 
and to this leading metaphor of a kingdom much 
of the figurative language throughout the New 

See before, pp. 223. 224. 



274 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Testament is conformed. The establishment of 
Christianity in the world is spoken of by Christ as 
the establishment of the kingdom or reign of the 
Messiah, or of God. This event he describes, fig- 
uratively, as " his coming to reign," or simply as 
" his coming," that is, his manifestation to men in 
his true character. 

Thus we find the following language (Matthew 
xvi. 27, 28) : " The Son of Man is coming in the 
glory of his Father, with his angels ; and then will 
he render to every one according to his deeds. I 
tell you in truth, There are some here present who 
will not taste of death, before they see the Son of 
Man entering on his reign." The literal meaning 
of these words may be thus given: The kingdom 
of Heaven, the Christian dispensation, will be es- 
tablished by a glorious display of the power of 
God ; and, being established, men will be reward- 
ed or punished as their actions conform to its 
laws ; every one will be judged by the laws of its 
king, the Son of Man ; and the establishment of 
Christianity in the world will be made secure and 
evident during the lifetime of some of those now 
present. 

He is coming " with his angels." Angels were 
conceived of by the Jews as ministers of God's 
providence ; and Christ, conforming his language 
to their conceptions, repeatedly speaks of the min- 
istry of angels, figuratively, to denote some mani- 
festation of the power of God. Thus he tells Na- 
thanael (John i. 51), " Ye will see heaven opened, 
and the angels of God ascending and descending 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 275 

to the Son of Man " ; meaning, Ye will witness 
manifest proof of the relation existing between 
God and me, his minister. When our Saviour 
speaks of his coming in the glory of God, with his 
angels, he does not mean by these figures to ex- 
press, that he himself will appear in person with 
some visible and splendid display ; his meaning is 
as has been explained ; corresponding to what he 
elsewhere says (Luke xvii. 20, 21), " The kingdom 
of God is not coming with any show that may be 
watched for ; nor will men say, Lo ! it is here ; or, 
Lo ! it is there ; for lo ! the kingdom of God is 
within you." 

In relation to this subject, there are still other 
facts to be attended to. With the establishment 
of Christianity was connected the punishment of 
the Jews for their rejection of Christ. They, in 
return, were rejected by God. The peculiar rela- 
tion w T hich they held toward him was publicly ab- 
rogated. As a nation they ceased to exist. Their 
country was ravaged, they were destroyed, or 
forced from it into slavery or exile ; Jerusalem was 
laid waste, and the temple burnt and thrown down. 
How the establishment of Christianity was con- 
nected with these events, we shall perceive, if we 
consider that the Jews had been separated by God 
from other nations, to be the subjects of a special 
dispensation, by which he was made known to 
them and they were called to worship him. They 
were, in an obvious sense of the words, his chosen 
people. But in rejecting Christ and refusing t ) 

28 



276 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

obey him, they had virtually renounced their alio* 
giance to God. They had dissolved by their own 
act the connection that had existed between Him 
and them. They had, if one may so speak, put 
the question at issue, whether they were still in 
favor with God, still his peculiar people, and Christ 
were a blasphemous impostor speaking falsely in 
the name of God, as they had declared him to be ; 
or whether Christ spoke with divine authority, and 
they consequently had refused to submit to the 
authority of God. The peculiar relation that had 
existed between God and them was recognized by 
Christ himself; to them he was immediately sent; 
his claims were in the first instance submitted to 
them; and they had rejected him as a false Mes- 
siah. The question thus at issue must, it would 
seem, receive a public and solemn decision, before 
the evidence of Christianity could be considered as 
complete ; and this decision was made by God in 
the rejection and punishment of the nation. 

This punishment, it is further to be recollected, 
had been announced by Christ. He had thus sus- 
pended the completion of the full evidence of his 
divine mission till the accomplishment of his proph- 
ecy. When that took place, the series of proofs 
might be considered as closed, and his religion as 
established. 

Nor is this all. The Jews were the bitter ene- 
mies of Christianity ; and it was against persecu- 
tion from them alone that the religion had first to 
struggle. In their opposition to it they had a van- 
tage-ground which none of its subsequent enemies 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 277 

possessed. They claimed to know the character 
and purposes of God, and to be the proper judges 
of a prophet pretending to be sent from him to 
their nation. In the view of many Gentiles, the 
question at issue between the Jews and Christ 
was, without doubt, regarded as " a question of 
their own superstition,"* which it was for them to 
decide. Now from this opposition and persecu- 
tion, of a nature to be so injurious to the growth 
of the new religion, Christianity was relieved by 
the destruction of the nation. It no longer ap- 
peared as an offshoot from Judaism, but assumed 
its independent character, not deriving support 
from the preceding dispensation, but throwing 
back evidence upon it. 

Thus it appears in what manner the estab- 
lishment of Christianity was connected with the 
destruction of the Jewish nation ; and why our 
Saviour sometimes speaks of the events as simul- 
taneous. This is the case throughout the proph- 
ecy in the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, so 
far as it relates to the calamities coming upon the 
Jews.f In this there are some passages that strik- 
ingly illustrate the modes of expression elsewhere 
used by Christ. He evidently speaks of his own 
coming and presence, figuratively, in the Oriental 
language of poetry and prophecy; and, in the same 
use of language, refers to his own personal agency 

* Acts xxv. 19 ; compare xviii. 15. 

t [For an explanation of the latter part of this chapter (vv. 42 - 51), 
which relates to a different subject, see Mr. Norton's Notes o i the 
Gospels.] 



278 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

events which were not to be effected by it, but 
were to be accomplished in his cause by God. 

After warning his disciples against being de- 
ceived by those who would falsely claim the char- 
acter of the Messiah, (his character, I conceive, as 
a deliverer from the tyranny of the Romans,) he 
says : " Should they say to you, Lo ! he [the Mes- 
siah] is in some solitary place ; go not forth : Lo ! 
he is in some private chamber ; believe it not. 
For the coming of the Son of Man will be like 
the lightning which flashes from the east to the 
west,"* — as apparent and splendid. The mean- 
ing is, For the evidence which God will afford for 
the establishment of my religion will be the most 
conspicuous and unequivocal. 

In what immediately follows, after predicting 
the extinction of the Jewish nation in language of 
which we have abundant examples in the Hebrew 
prophets, that is, in the strongest figures represent- 
ing a day of utter darkness,f he proceeds : " And 

* Matthew xxiv. 26, 27. 

t "A day of darkness" is an obvious figure for a " day of distress." 
Henee, in the Oriental style, a time of utter calamity, the destruction 
of a nation, is described by the extinction of the sun and the other 
lights of heaven. Thus Isaiah (ch. xiii. 9, 10), in speaking of the de- 
struction of Babylon, says : — 

"Behold, the day of Jehovah is coming, cruel with wrath and fierce 
anger, to lay the land desolate and to destroy its sinners out of it. 

"For the stars of heaven and its constellations shall not give their 
light, the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall 
not cause her light to shine." 

So also Ezekiel, describing the fall of Egypt (ch. xxxii. 7, 8) : — 

"And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make 
its stars dark. I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shaU 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 279 

then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in 
heaven ; and then all the tribes of the land wffl 
beat their breasts, when they shall see the Son of 
Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power 
and great glory." The Jews had repeatedly de- 
manded of Christ a sign from heaven ; that is, a 
miracle conspicuous in the heavens, or apparently 
having its origin there. This, for some reason or 
other, they pretended to regard as what might 
afford clear proof of his being the Messiah, such 
proof as his other works did not furnish. They 
made the refusal of this sign one main pretext of 
their unbelief. " The Jews," says St. Paul, " de- 
mand signs."* In St. John's Gospel the Jews are 
represented as comparing Christ with Moses, and 
asking, " What sign do you show us, that we may 
give you credit? What do you perform? Our 
fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is writ- 
ten, He gave them bread from heaven to eatP\ It 
is in reference, I think, to this demand of the Jews, 
that our Saviour says, " Then the sign of the Son 
of Man will appear in heaven "; intending by these 
words, that the most conspicuous proof would then 
be given of his divine mission. This proof, he ex- 
presses in what follows, would be a display of 
God's providence in the establishment of his rn- 

not give her light ; all the bright lights of heaven will I make dark 
over thee, and spread darkness over thy land." 

It is unnecessary to quote at length more examples of this figura- 
tive language. Others may be found, Isaiah xxxiv. 4 ; Jeremiah x.Y, 
9 ; Joel ii. 30, 31 ; iii. 15 ; Amos viii. 9. 

* 1 Corinthians i. 22. 

t John vi. 30,31. 

28* 



2S0 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

ligion, which would cause all the inhabitants ol 
the land to lament. It would be his triumph and 
their desolation. He describes it under the figure 
of his coming on the clouds of heaven with great 
power and glory. 

This is one of those passages which may teach 
us how such figurative language is to be under- 
stood. There was no visible appearance of our 
Saviour at the destruction of Jerusalem, nor have 
we reason to ascribe the punishment of the Jews 
in any degree to his personal agency. No such 
visible appearance took place before the generation 
then living had passed away. Yet all the events 
which it was his purpose to predict occurred dur- 
ing that period. After what has been quoted, he 
says (verse 34) : " I tell you in truth, that they will 
all take place before this generation passes aw r ay." 
It is, then, the power of God displayed in his 
cause, which he speaks of figuratively as his own. 
Thus, likewise, we are to understand his words 
when he says, in his last charge to his disciples 
(Matthew xxviii. 18), " All power is given me in 
heaven and on earth"; where he ascribes to him- 
self personally the power of God which would b^ 
exerted in the support of Christianity. 

After the prediction of the destruction of Jeru 
salem, our Saviour in the next chapter (Matthew 
xxv.) represents the kingdom of Heaven, or Chris- 
tianity, as established and in operation. All are 
to be judged by its laws, the laws of God's moral 
government. Some will be rewarded, and some 
punished, all according to their deeds. After his 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 281 

enforcing this truth in two parables, follows that 
most solemn and impressive description, in which 
he represents himself personally as the Judge of 
men. It contains a most important truth envel- 
oped in a most striking figure. It is a scenical 
representation, adapted powerfully to affect the 
minds of his immediate hearers, and our own* 
The naked truth here taught is the most impor- 
tant, the most practical truth of religion, — that 
which concerns us the most deeply ; it is, that our 
happiness or misery is to be determined by our- 
selves, by the conformity of our conduct to the 
will of God, which Christ has revealed. The sol- 
emn imagery in which this truth is presented is 
but an expansion of the figure that our Saviour 
had before used : " The Son of Man is coming in 
the glory of his Father, with his angels ; and then 
will he render to every one according to his deeds." 
What was predicted in these words was to take 
place while some who heard him were still living : 
" I tell you in truth, There are some here present 
who will not taste of death, before they see the 
Son of Man entering on his reign." While the 
generation then living continued on earth, the 
kingdom of Heaven was to be established, the 
Messiah was to assume his reign, and men were 
to be judged by his laws.* It may be observed, 
that the figure which connects his judging in per- 
son with his assuming his reign, would be obvious 

* [Compare the note on Matthew xxv. in Mr. Norton's Notes on 
the Gospels ; and in regard to the figurative use of language here 
illustrated, see, further, his note on Matthew xiii. 36 - 43.] 



282 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

to an Oriental ; the ancient custom having been 
for kings to sit in person as judges. Hence, both 
in the Old and New Testament, the verb "to judge'* 
is not unfrequently used as equivalent to the verb 
" to reign " or " to rule." 

But this language is highly figurative ; and why. 
it may be asked, was such language used by our 
Saviour, language of which the purport is liable to 
be misunderstood ? The answer is, that, in the 
first place, the essential meaning of the words, 
that meaning which is of the deepest interest to 
all, may be readily understood. It is clearly taught, 
that every man will receive according to his deeds; 
that our condition in the future life will be deter- 
mined by our character in the present. To account 
for the imagery in which this truth is presented, we 
must look to the intellectual habits and culture of 
those addressed. The contemporaries and country- 
men of Christ clothed their conceptions in language 
very different from that with which we are familiar. 
To them, Oriental fashions of speech were vernacu- 
lar. They were to be addressed through their feel- 
ings and imagination. The great body of the Jews, 
unaccustomed to any exercise of the understanding, 
had scarcely the power of apprehending a truth 
presented to them as a philosophical abstraction, 
in its naked and literal form. An array of figures 
was required to command their attention. It was 
necessary that the doctrine taught should be incor 
porated, as it were, in images obvious to sight, in 
order to affect their minds. The ideas presented 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 283 

were to be conveyed in a manner adapted to their 
conceptions and associations, to their capacity of 
comprehending and feeling. A teacher, divine or 
human, who should have explained the truths of 
religion in the language of Locke or of Butler, 
would have found no hearers on the shores of 
Gennesaret or within the walls of Jerusalem. Our 
Saviour, had he been addressing a small body of 
philosophers, would undoubtedly have expressed 
himself in a manner very different from that in 
which he spoke to the Jewish multitudes, or even 
to his own disciples. I say in a very different 
manner; for the essential truths of religion could 
not have been more distinctly made known by him. 
But his language, it may be said, is now liable 
to be misunderstood by us. Certainly it is so, 
upon some points of minor importance, if we will 
not exercise our reason upon the subject ; and he 
is in a great error who supposes that any rule 
can be laid down for the study of the Scriptures, 
which shall supersede the exercise of investigation, 
thought, and judgment. Except in treating of the 
exact sciences, the very nature of language ren- 
ders impossible such a use of it as will preclude 
all liability to be misunderstood. The impression 
which it makes, the ideas which it excites, in him 
who hears or reads it, depend upon the previous 
state of his own mind. In proportion as one is 
prepared to apprehend a subject as it was appre- 
hended by him who spoke or wrote, he will be 
more likely to receive the meaning designed. In 
passing from one age to another, or from one na 



284 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

tion to another, the significance of language varies 
with the ever-varying conceptions of men. Our 
Saviour often left his words to be explained by 
subsequent events, or to be rightly apprehended as 
the minds of his hearers acquired power to accom- 
modate themselves to the truth. During his min- 
istry, his Apostles often misunderstood him ; and it 
was not till many years after his ascension, that 
they comprehended the purport of the simple di- 
rection, " Go and make disciples from all nations"; 
and then only in consequence of a new miracle. 

The language of Christ respecting his future 
coming and his judgment of men was likewise, I 
believe, misunderstood by his Apostles. Interpret- 
ing it literally, they anticipated a personal and 
visible return of their Master to earth at no dis- 
tant period, when he would appear as the Judge 
of mankind. This is a subject necessary to be 
explained in connection with the views that have 
been given of the meaning of Christ, which would 
be otherwise imperfect and unsatisfactory. At the 
same time, it is a subject involving considerations 
of great importance. But its discussion in this 
place would too much interrupt the train of the 
present argument ; and I shall, therefore, treat of it 
in an Appendix to this volume.* 

I may here take notice, however, of the argument 
founded by Trinitarians upon the conceptions of 
the Apostles respecting the judgment of mankind 

* [See Appendix, Note B.] 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 285 

by Christ. It has been contended by them, that 
what the Apostles expected is still future ; that 
Christ is hereafter to judge all men in person ; 
that, in order to this, he must be acquainted with 
every thought and action of every individual; that 
such knowledge supposes omniscience ; that om- 
niscience is the attribute of God alone; and that 
Christ, therefore, is God. Without examining any 
of the other steps in this argument, one need only 
remark upon the very limited notion which it im* 
plies of omniscience on the one hand, and of the 
power of God on the other. The knowledge of all 
thoughts and deeds which have taken place in this 
world from its creation would be, compared with 
omniscience, less than the acquaintance that a 
child may have with its nursery, compared with 
the apprehensions of an archangel. Would it, 
then, be an act transcending the power of God to 
communicate that knowledge ? Could he not give 
to one man a perfect acquaintance with one other ? 
And if this be possible, is his power still so bound- 
ed, that he could not give to one who had been 
a man, a perfect knowledge of the thoughts and 
deeds of all other men who have lived ? 

In urging such obvious arguments as these, there 
is a humiliating consciousness of the weakness of 
the cause we are opposing. One may feel as if he 
were wasting reasoning upon a subject unworthy 
of it ; as if his remarks implied a want of common 
intelligence in his readers ; as if he were exposed 
to the same ridicule, as he who should gravely and 
earnestly labor the proof of an undeniable propo- 



286 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

sition. But the same is the ease with all direct 
reasoning against the doctrine of the Trinity ; and 
one can reconcile himself to the discussion of it 
only by considering, not what that doctrine is in 
itself, but how widely and how long it has pre- 
vailed, how obstinately it is still professed, and the 
manifold mischiefs which have flowed and are still 
flowing from it. 



CLASS VI. 



Passages misinterpreted through inattention to the 
peculiar characteristics of the modes of expression 
in the New Testament. 

Corresponding to what has been already said, 
the modes of expression in the books of the New 
Testament are often different from those which we 
should use at the present day to express the same 
'essential meaning. All our habits of life, all the 
habits of our minds, our conceptions, our modes of 
apprehension, our associations of thought, are more 
or less unlike those of their writers, or of the in- 
dividuals for whom the books were primarily 
intended. Our imaginations are familiar with 
different objects ; our feelings are excited by other 
causes ; our minds are occupied by other subjects. 
While the essential truths of religion, as taught by 
Christ and his Apostles, have remained unchanged 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 287 

and unchangeable, the sphere of human knowl- 
edge has widened, and philosophy has made great 
advances. A gradual change has been taking 
place in the character of men^s ideas ; they are 
combined in different aggregates, they are em- 
bodied in other forms of language, they are better 
defined, they stand in different relations to each 
other. Let any one recollect and bring together 
what he may know of the half-civilized inhabitants 
of Galilee, of the bigoted Jews of Jerusalem, or of 
the Christian converts from heathenism at Corinth 
or Ephesus ; and he will perceive that they were 
men, who, in their ways of thinking and feeling, in 
their opinions and prejudices, in their degree of 
information, in their power of comprehending truth, 
in the influences to which they had been subject, 
and in the circumstances in which they were placed, 
were very unlike an intelligent reader of the New 
Testament at the present day. The writers of the 
New Testament partook of the character of their 
age and nation. Their circumstances, likewise, 
were in the highest degree peculiar, and produced 
corresponding feelings, which we cannot fully ap- 
prehend without an effort of thought and imagina- 
tion. They were Jews, accustomed to strong Ori- 
ental modes of speech, and to figurative language 
of a kind not familiar to us, and the force of which, 
therefore, we are liable to misapprehend. All these 
circumstances contributed to produce a style of ex- 
pression in the New Testament which is not to be 
judged of by the standard of our own. We may 
satisfy ourselves that we have ascertained the true 

29 



2S8 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

meaning of a writer, even when his language varies 
much from that which the habits of our time might 
lead us to adopt in conveying the same ideas. 

Of passages that bear the stamp of what, in a 
wide sense of the term, one may call the Oriental 
style of the New Testament, we have already had 
many examples under the preceding heads, par- 
ticularly under the last. I now propose to explain 
a few passages in the Epistles to the Ephesians 
and Colossians ; two epistles written probably at 
the same time, having a striking likeness, and serv- 
ing to illustrate each other. That which goes 
under the name of the Epistle to the Ephesians 
was probably a circular epistle sent to different 
churches in Asia Minor. They were written from 
Rome late in the life of the Apostle, just aboui 
the termination of his first imprisonment in that 
city. They were addressed to Christians who 
were principally converts from heathenism. One 
main object of the Apostle was to impress them 
with a deep sense of the blessings they had re- 
ceived solely through the favor of God, of the 
value of their religion, and of the relations in 
which its teacher stood to God and to his follow- 
ers; and thus to prevent them from confounding it 
with any human doctrine, and modifying it, or 
adding to it, from heathen philosophy or the super- 
stitions of the Jews. He was earnest to make 
them feel how intimately they were connected 
with Christ, and to direct their thoughts to hirr 
as, under God, the only source of their knowledge, 
blessings, and hopes. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 239 

There was danger that, after the first excitement 
produced by the promulgation of Christianity had 
passed away, it would be regarded by many Gen- 
tile converts only as a new speculation upon topics 
which had long engaged the attention of their phi- 
losophers, — a system of opinions having its origin 
in a nation whom they regarded as barbarous (in 
the ancient sense of the w r ord), which they might 
adopt in part only, reject, or modify, like other 
speculations, in their view similar. It was with a 
feeling of this danger, that St. Paul told the Co- 
rinthians that he was sent " to preach, not with 
wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should 
become of no account";* and that he was "de- 
termined to know nothing among them, but Jesus 
Christ, and him crucified."! In the two Epistles 
we are considering, he teaches those addressed, 
that it was through Christ alone that they who 
were formerly Gentiles had attained to a knowl- 
edge of God, and of the truths and hopes of re- 
ligion. To raise and strengthen their sense of the 
value of Christianity, he describes its blessings, 
especially in reference to themselves who had been 
Gentiles, in the strongest terms ; and, to fix their 
attention on Christ as their great and sole Master, 
he uses language equally strong in speaking of 
his relation to God, of the importance and dignity 
of his office, and of the dependence of all his fol- 
lowers upon him. 

To the Colossians he says (i. 9-20): — 

" So then we also, since we first heard of youi 

• 1 Oor. i. 17. ♦ 1 Corii, 2, 



290 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

faith, cease not to pray for you, and to ask that 
you may be made perfect in the knowledge of 
God's will, having all spiritual wisdom and un- 
derstanding ; that you may walk worthily of the 
Lord to all acceptance, being fruitful in every good 
work, and increasing in the knowledge of God ; 
being endued with all strength through his glorious 
power, so as to bear all things patiently and joy- 
fully ; giving thanks to the Father, who has quali- 
fied us to share the lot of the holy who are in the 
light, rescuing us from the empire of darkness, and 
transferring us into the kingdom of his beloved 
Son ; by whom we are delivered, our sins being 
remitted ; who is the image of the invisible God, 
the first-born of the whole creation ; for by him all 
has been created, the heavenly and the earthly, the 
seen and the unseen, whether thrones, or princi- 
palities, or governments, or powers, all has been 
created through him and for him, and he is over 
all, and all exists by him. And he is the head of 
the body, the community of the holy,* he being the 
beginning, the first-born from the dead, that he 
might have pre-eminence in all things. For with 
him it pleased God that whatever is perfect should 
be united, and through him to reconcile all to 
himself, — making peace through the blood of his 
cross, — all whether in heaven or on earth through 
him." 

In this passage there are some expressions that 
require explanation. God, says St. Paul, " has 

* Or " the church " : I use the term given above as more compre- 
hensive and expressive. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 291 

transferred us from the empire of darkness into the 
kingdom of his beloved Son." To this metaphor 
much of the following language corresponds. It 
was this kingdom which had been newly created, 
that is, had been newly formed; for it is thus that 
the word rendered created is to be understood. 
We find it, and its correlatives, repeatedly used in 
a similar sense by St. Paul, namely, to denote the 
moral renovation of men by Christianity. Thus 
he says : — 

" If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. 
The old things have passed away ; behold, all things 
have become neiv." 2 Cor. v. 17. 

" For in Christ Jesus neither is circumcision 
anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." 
Gal. vi. 15. 

" For we are God's workmanship, created through 
Christ Jesus for good works." Ephes. ii. 10. 

u Put on the new man, who is created in the 
likeness of God with the righteousness and holi- 
ness of the true faith." Ephes. iv. 24. 

The language from the Epistle to the Colossians 
in which Christ is said to have created all things, 
is to be explained in a corresponding manner. He 
created all things in the new dispensation, in the 
kingdom of Heaven. It has been understood as 
declaring, that the natural creation was the work of 
Christ. But it is obvious, at first sight, that the 
words used are not such as properly designate the 
objects of the natural ivorld; and not such, there- 
fore, as we should expect to be employed, if these 
were intended. In speaking of the natural crea- 

29* 



292 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

tion, the same Apostle refers it to God in different 
terms, — to "the living God who made heaven 
and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in 
them." * 

But what is meant by the Apostle when he 
speaks of Christ as creating things heavenly, and 
unseen, thrones, principalities, governments, and 
powers ? I answer, that Christ is here spoken of 
by him as the founder and monarch of the king- 
dom of Heaven ; and that this kingdom is con- 
ceived of, not as confined to earth, but as extend- 
ing to the blessed in heaven, to those who have 
entered, or may enter, on their reward. Christ 
being represented under the figure of a king, and 
his followers being those who constituted the sub- 
jects of his kingdom, their highest honors and 
rewards are spoken of, in figurative language, as 
thrones, principalities, governments, and powers. 
He himself said to his Apostles : " In the regenera- 
tion," — that is, "in the new creation," for the terms 
are equivalent, — "In the regeneration, when the 
Son of Man shall sit on the throne of his glory, 
you also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the 
twelve tribes of Israel." f " To sit on my right 
hand and on my left" — to hold the highest places 
in my kingdom, to attain the highest rewards con- 
ferred on my followers — "is not mine to grant, 
but it will be given to those for whom it has been 
prepared by my Father." J But the kingdom of 
Heaven including the seen as well as the unseen, 

* Acts xiv. 15. t Matthew xix 2S ♦ Matthew xx 23. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 293 

the earthly as well as the heavenly, the terms in 
question are to be understood, not merely as re- 
ferring to the rewards of the blessed in heaven, but 
as denoting likewise the highest offices and digni- 
ties of this kingdom on earth; the offices of those 
who were ministers of Christ, its king, — his apos- 
tles and teachers. The purpose of St. Paul is to 
declare, that Christ is the former and master of 
the whole church on earth and in heaven, of the 
whole community of the holy; that he is the au- 
thor of all their blessings ; that all authority among 
them is from him ; that all are ruled by his laws ; 
that the whole kingdom on earth and in heaven 
exists through him, and, figuratively speaking, "for 
him," as its monarch. 

The same leading ideas are somewhat differently 
expressed in the corresponding passage in the Epis- 
tle to the Ephesians (i. 15-23) : — 

" And therefore I, hearing of your faith in the 
Lord Jesus, and of your love toward all the holy, 
do not cease to give thanks for you, praying that 
the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of 
glory, may give you the spirit of wisdom and di- 
vine illumination, that you may become acquainted 
with him, the eyes of your minds being enlightened, 
that you may know what is the hope to which he 
has summoned you, and how rich is that glorious 
inheritance which he has given you among the 
holy, and how exceedingly great is his power ex- 
erted for us believers, corresponding to the opera- 
tion of his might displayed in raising Christ from 
the dead; whom he hath seated at his own right 



294 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

hand in heaven, over all rule, and authority, and 
power, and dominion, and every title of honor in 
this age or in that to come ; putting ill things 
under his feet, and appointing him supreme head 
of the community of the holy, which is his body, 
the perfectness of him who is made completely 
perfect in all things." 

]n the passage first quoted from the Epistle to 
the Colossians, there is a clause (verse 19) which 
I have rendered, " For with him it pleased God, 
that whatever is perfect should be united." The 
rendering of the Common Version is, " For it 
pleased the Father, that in him should all fulness 
dwell." The word here translated " fulness, 7r\?;- 
pco/jLCL, means "perfectness," "perfection," "comple- 
tion," u fulness," or "that which perfects," "com- 
pletes," " fills." In the Epistles to the Ephesians 
and Colossians, it is used by St. Paul in a peculiar 
manner ; and from the want of a corresponding 
term which will readily suggest his meaning, there 
is in some instances a difficulty in expressing it in 
English. The rendering of the passages where it 
occurs must be varied according to the circum- 
stances of the case. 

The leading idea, I conceive, which St. Paul 
intended to express by this word in these two 
Epistles, is the Perfectness of Christianity, whether 
considered as a perfect display of the character of 
God, as a perfect system of religious truth, or as 
making its disciples perfect, in the scriptural sense 
of that word. All perfection, in his view, was 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 2&0 

combined in it ; and his meaning in the clause 
just referred to is, that it pleased the Father that 
this whole Perfectness, with all those who were 
the subjects of it (irav to TrXripcojuLa), should abide 
with Christ. To him, as their sole master and 
teacher, his followers were to look. Nothing, to 
complete his religion, was to be drawn from any 
other sourno. Whatever was perfect was in him, 
that is, in his religion ; to him every " perfect " 
man was united. 

Thus he says in the Epistle to the Ephesians 
(iii. 14-19): — 

" For this, I bend my knees to the Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, whose name is borne by every 
family [of Christ's disciples] in heaven or on earth, 
that, from his glorious abundance, he may grant 
you to be powerfully strengthened, through his 
spirit, within ; that Christ may dwell in your 
hearts through faith; that you may have your 
root and foundation in love ; and thus that you 
may be able to comprehend, with all the holy, the 
breadth and the length, the depth and the height, 
of his goodness,* and to know that Christian lovef 

* I insert the words " of his goodness " to make what I conceive to 
be the meaning of the Apostle clear in a translation. The reference 
of the preceding terms descriptive of magnitude is, I suppose, to top 
7i\gvtov ttjs do£r)s avrov, verbally, " the richness of his glory," which 
I have rendered, " his glorious abundance." These words, and others 
equivalent, — as 6 7t\ovtos ttjs x^P LT0S avrov, 6 ttXovtos tov Xpi- 
orrov, — occur often in these Epistles as descriptive of the goodness of 
God to the Gentiles. With the passage in the text may be compared 
Romans xi 33, ? Q (3d6os ttKovtov kol crofyLas <a\ yvcovws Qeov ! 

t Ti)v ayanr^v tov X/ncrroi), "that love which Christ has taught 
and requires," of which the Apostle so often speaks in these Epistles, 
that love which, he elsewhere teaches, is better than knowledge. 



296 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

which is better than knowledge ; so that your per 
fection may correspond to the whole perfec * dis- 
pensation of God," — verbally, that "you r «iy be 
perfected to the whole perfection of God," that is, 
the whole perfection which has God for its author. 

In another passage in the same Epistle (iv. 11- 
13) he says, that God (to whom, and not to Christ, 
the preceding verses relate) * 

" — gave to some to be apostles, to some to be 
public teachers, to some to be evangelists, to some 
to be pastors and private teachers, that they might 
perfect the holy, execute the work of the ministry, 
form the body of Christ, till we all attain the same 
faith, and the same knowledge of the Son of God, 
becoming full-grown men, reaching the full stature 
of Christian perfection." 

The words of the last clause, verbally rendered, 
would be, " the measure of the stature of the Per- 
fectness [that is, of the perfect dispensation] of 
Christ." 

In a passage already quoted (Ephesians i. 23), 
the community of the holy is called " the body of 
Christ, the perfectness of him who is made com- 
pletely perfect in all things." The word TrXripco/jLa, 
perfectness, is not here used in the extent of its 
signification as I have explained it. It is limited 
to the subjects of the perfect diepensation of Christ. 
As it stands, it has a double reference; one figu- 
rative to the idea of the perfectness, produced by 
uniting a body to its head, the church being the 

* [See the Christian Examiner for January 1828, Vol. V. pp. 
65-67.] 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 297 

body and Christ the head ; the other literal, the 
church being called the perfectness of Christ, partly 
because its members are considered as perfect, and 
partly because its formation was the perfecting of 
the great design of him, who, as a minister of God 
and teacher of the truth, was u made completely 
perfect in all things." 

We will now turn to Colossians ii. 1 -10 : — 
" For I wish you to know what earnest care I 
lave for you, and for those of Laodicea, and for 
til who have not known me in person ; that being 
rnit together in love, their minds may be excited 
o attain to all the riches of a complete understand- 
ing, to a full acquaintance with the new doctrine 
if God, in which are stored all the treasures of 
visxiom and knowledge. What I would is this, 
that no one may impose upon you by specious 
discusses. For I, though I am absent in body, 
am pu^sent with you in spirit, rejoicing at the sight 
of your well-ordered state, and the firmness of your 
faith in Christ. As, therefore, you have received 
Christ Jesus the Lord, so continue to walk in 
his way, rooted in him, built upon him, and es- 
tablished in the faith as it has been taught you, 
abounding in thanksgiving. Beware lest any man 
make a prey of you by a vain and deceitful philos- 
ophy, conformed to the doctrines of men, the prin- 
ciples of the world, and not to Christ ; for with 
him abides, as his body, all that is divinely per- 
fect ; and you are made perfect through him, who 
is the head of ail rule and authority." 

By the words rendered " all that is divinely per- 



298 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

feet," I understand the whole divine, perfect dis- 
pensation, with all who had become the subjects 
of it.* In the light in which the passage has been 
placed, it will be perceived that the leading ideas, 
and the language in which they are expressed, are 
both essentially the same with what we find in 
other passages of these two Epistles, which we 
have before noticed. These thoughts dwelt upon 
the mind of the Apostle while writing, and he re- 
iterates them with a slight change of form. They 
consist in exhortations to unwavering faith, to en- 
tire deference to the instructions of Christ alone, 
and to constant progress in Christian knowledge 
and love ; exhortations founded upon the perfect- 
ness of the religion taught by Christ, upon his di- 
vine authority, and upon the most intimate con- 
nection subsisting between him and all his true fol- 
lowers, he being the head, as it were, and they the 
body, all their blessings and all their knowledge, all 
that was perfect in them, being derived from him. 

There are two other passages which, perhaps, 
it may be worth while to notice under the present 
head. In the twelfth chapter of John's Gospel 
(verse 40), the Evangelist applies to the Jews of 
his time words derived from Isaiah (vi. 10), which 
he thus gives : " He has blinded their eyes, and 

* In the original words, to 7r\r]pco{jia rr/s QeoTTjros, the genitive mav 
denote the relation of an attribute to its subject, so that the words 
may be equivalent to to Oelov 7rA?7pct>/ia ; or the relation of a cause 
to its effect, so that they may mean 'the perfection which has divin- 
ity for its author." The ultimate meaning is in both cases the same. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 299 

made their minds callous, so that they see not 
with their eyes, nor understand with their minds, 
nor turn from their ways, for me to heal them." 
"These words," he continues, " said Isaiah, when 
he saw his glory, and spoke concerning him." 
The primary reference of the passage was to the 
indirect effects to be produced by the preaching of 
the Prophet himself upon the Jews of his time.* 
But the Evangelist regarded it as having a sec- 
ondary reference to Christ ; and supposed Isaiah 
when uttering those words to have seen, that is, to 
have foreseen, his glory ; the verb to see having 
here the same force as when used concerning Abra- 
ham : " Abraham saw my day and rejoiced."! 

But the words found in Isaiah are represented 
by the Prophet as having been addressed to him- 
self by Jehovah, when he beheld a vision of him in 
the temple ; and the Trinitarian contends, that the 
glory seen by Isaiah, to which St. John refers, was 
this glory of Jehovah, and consequently that Jeho- 
vah and Christ are the same. Unquestionably 
this interpretation might be admitted, if it involved 
no absurdity and no contradiction to what is else- 
where said by the Evangelist. But if it do, it is 
equally unquestionable that it cannot be admitted. 

An argument has been founded by Trinitarians 
upon the exclamation of the Apostle Thomas, 
when convinced of the truth of his Master's resur- 
rection : " And Thomas said to Jesus, My Master! 

* [See on this pa?sage Mr. Norton's Notes on the Gospels.] 
t [John viii. 56.] 

30 



300 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

and my God ! " * Both titles, I believe, were ap- 
plied by him to Jesus. But the name "God" 
was employed by him, not as the proper name 
of the Deity, but as an appellative, according to 
a common use of it in his day ; or perhaps in a 
figurative sense, as it sometimes occurs in modern 
writers, of which the passages before quoted from 
Young afford examples.! I have already had oc* 
casion to remark upon the different significancy of 
the term " God " in ancient and in modern times, 
a difference important to be well understood in 
order to ascertain the meaning of ancient authors. J 
The name "God" is an appellative in the Old Tes- 
tament^ and it is a characteristic and peculiar 

* [John xx. 28.] t See p. 158. 

t [See p. 120, note.] 

§ [The Hebrew words commonly translated " God " in the Old 
Testament are Elohim and EL The former is applied to Moses, 
Exodus vii. 1 (comp. iv. 16) ; — to the apparition of Samuel, 1 Sam. 
xxviii. 13 (comp. verse 14); — to Solomon, or some other king of 
Israel, Psalm xlv. 6 ; — to judges, Exodus xxi. 6 ; xxii. 8, 9, 28 ; — 
and to kings or magistrates, Psalm lxxxii. 1, 6, and perhaps exxxviii. 
1 (comp. verse 4, and Psalm cxix. 46). See also Ezekiel xxviii. 1. 
Many have supposed the word Elohim to denote angels in Genesis 
iii. 5 (comp. verse 22), Psalm viii. 5, and some other passages, as 
Psalm xcvii. 7, where the Septuagint version has ayyeXot. This 
opinion was entertained by Milton, who accordingly, in his Paradise 
Lost, very often denominates angels " gods.'' The title " God of 
gods " is repeatedly given to Jehovah in the Old Testament : see 
Deuteronomy x. 17; Joshua xxii. 22 ; Psalm 1. 1 (Heb.); exxxvi. 2; 
Daniel xi. 36. 

El is the Hebrew word which is translated " God " in Isaiah ix. 6, 
where it is supposed by most Trinitarian commentators to be a name 
of Christ. This passage has already been noticed. (See p. 182.) 
The same word is applied 'to Nebuchadnezzar in Ezekiel xxxi. 11, 
where it is rendered in the Common Version " the mighty one " ; in 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 301 

distinction of the writers of the New Testament, 
when compared with those who preceded and fol- 
lowed them, that they used this name as it is used 
by enlightened Christians at the present day. 

But the argument deserves notice as illustrating 

the Scptuagint, apxcov, "ruler." In Ezekiel xxxii. 21, where it is 
used in the plural, it is translated " the strong." In Isaiah ix. 6, the 
Septuagint version, according to the Alexandrine manuscript, and 
also the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, render the 
word by Ivxvpos, "strong." 

Our Saviour refers to this use of the word " God," in a lower sense, 
in the Old Testament. " Is it not written in your Law, I said, Ye are 
gods ? If those are called gods to whom the word of God was ad- 
dressed," &c. See John x. 34-36, and compare Psalm lxxxii. 1, 6. 

There is but one passage in the New Testament, besides that now 
under consideration, in which there is any good reason for supposing 
the name " God" to be given to Christ. This is in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, i. 8, 9, quoted from Psalm xlv. 6, 7, — " Thy throne, 
God, is for ever and ever/' &c. But here the context proves that the 
word u God " does not denote the Supreme Being, but is used in an 
inferior sense. This is admitted by some of the most respectable 
Trinitarian critics. Thus the Rev. Dr. Mayer remarks: "Here 
[i. e. in Hebrews i. 8] the Son is addressed by the title God ; but the 
context shows that it is an official title, which designates him as a 
king: he has a kingdom, a throne, and a sceptre ; and in ver. 9, he is 
compared with other kings, who are called his fellows ; but God can 
have no fellows. As the Son, therefore, he is classed with the kirgs 
of the earth, and his superiority over them consists in this, that he is 
anointed with the oil of gladness above them ; inasmuch as their 
thrones are temporary, but his shall be everlasting." (Article on 
" The Sonship of Christ," in the Biblical Repository for January 
1840, p. 149.) So Professor Stuart says: "As to the quotation of 
Psalm xlv. it seems to me a clear case, that it does not fairly estab- 
lish the truly divine nature of him to whom it is applied. Elohim 
appears to be here applied as designating an official capacity, which 
is high above that of all other kings." (Biblical Repository for 
July 1835, pp. 105, 106 ; compare his Commentary on Hebrews, 
p. 294, 2d ed.) After these admissions, it is hardly worth while 
\i mention the fact, that such commentators as Calvin and Grotius 



302 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

the very loose reasoning which has been resortec 
to in bringing passages from the Old and the New 
Testament in support of false doctrines. Suppos- 
ing that Thomas had believed, and asserted, that 
his Master was God himself ; in what way should 

regard the Psalm in question as relating, in its primary sense, to 
Solomon. 

Such, then, being the use of the word u God " in the Old Testa- 
ment, Thomas may have applied it to Christ as it is applied to the 
subject of the forty-fifth Psalm, where it denotes " a divinely-anointed 
king," regarded as the earthly representative of God. But, without 
reference to this use of the word, there is no difficulty in conceiving 
that Thomas, under the circumstances related by the Evangelist, may 
have applied the term " God " to Christ, not as the Infinite and Un- 
changeable Being, but as one invested with the authority of God and 
manifesting his perfections, — his Image and Vicegerent on earth. 
He had listened to his words of eternal life; he had beheld the mani- 
festations of that supernatural power which stilled the tempest, which 
gave sight to the blind, which raised the dead ; in his Master's resur- 
rection he now recognized, with feelings which we can hardly realize, 
the immediate interposition of the Almighty ; the impression which 
had been made on his mind and heart by all that was divine in Christ 
was vivified anew; he felt the truth of the sublime words which but 
a few days before he had heard from his lips, " He who has seen me 
has seen the Father " ; and, overwhelmed with wonder, reverence, 
and awe, he exclaims, " My Master ! and my God ! " 

But is it not marvellous that theologians have made of this ex- 
clamation a proof-text, construing language of the strongest emotion 
as if it were the language of a creed ? A more rational view, 
however, has been taken of the passage by such commentators as 
Michaelis, Roscnmuller, Kuinoel, and Liicke, — and, apparently, 
Neander and Tholuck, — who recognize the invalidity of the Trini- 
tarian argument which has been founded upon it. Meyer, in the first 
edition of his Commentary (1834), remarked, very judiciously, that 
expressions uttered "in such ecstatic moments" are "entirely mis- 
used when applied to the proof of doctrinal propositions." But in 
his second edition (1852) he does not seem quite willing to give up 
the passage. He speaks of Thomas as expressing " his faith in the 
divine nature [or essence, Wesen] of his Lord " ; and, though he ob 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 303 

this affect our faith ? We should still know the 
fact on which his belief was founded, the fact of 
the resurrection of his Master, and could draw our 
own inferences from it, and judge whether his were 
well founded. Considering into how great an er- 

serves that the strong feeling under which the exclamation was ut- 
tered renders it less fitted for doctrinal use, he cites as important the 
remark of Erasmus, that Christ accepted the acknowledgment of 
Thomas, instead of rebuking him, as he would have done if he had 
been falsely called God. The obvious reply to this is, that Christ 
accepted the acknowledgment of Thomas as he meant it, not in the 
irrational sense which modern theologians have put upon the words. 
And as Greenwood has well remarked : — 

"The answer of Jesus himself excludes the supposition that he was 
addressed as the Supreme God. For he said unto his disciple, 
'Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed ; blessed are 
they that have not seen, and yet have believed.' Now this must 
mean, ' Because thou hast seen me here alive, after my crucifixion 
and burial, thou hast believed that I am raised from the dead ; and 
it is well ; but blessed are they who cannot have such evidence of the 
senses, and yet shall believe in the glorious truth, from your evidence, 
and that of your brethren.' He could not have meant, that they n-ere 
blessed who, though they had not seen him, yet had believed that he 
was God ; because there is no connection between the propositions ; 
because the fact of the resurrection of Jesus cannot, to the mind of 
any one, be of itself a proof of his deity ; and because no one thinks 
of requiring to see God, in order to believe that he exists." (Lives 
of the Twelve Apostles, 2d ed., p. 139.) 

Nothing can be more thoroughly irreconcilable with the whole tenor 
of the Gospel history, than the supposition that the disciples, during 
their intercourse with their Master on earth, regarded him as the Su- 
preme Being. (See before, p. 75, et seqq.) It is, accordingly, ad- 
mitted by many Trinitarians, that the mystery of the hypostatic union 
was not revealed to them before the effusion of the Spirit on the day 
of Pentecost. See Wilson's " Unitarian Principles confirmed by Trini- 
tarian Testimonies," p. 351, et seqq. 

What the Apostle John understood to be implied in this confession 
of Thomas, may be inferred from the words with which he concludes 
this chapter.] 

30* 



304 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

ror he had fallen in his previous obstinate incredu- 
lity, there would be little reason for relying upon 
his opinion as infallible in the case supposed. I 
make these remarks, not from any doubt about the 
meaning of his words, but, as I have said, for the 
purpose of pointing out one example of that in- 
complete and unsatisfactory mode of reasoning, 
which appears in the use of many quotations 
from the Old and the New Testament. 



CLASS VII. 



The passages to which we have had occasion to 
attend are of a character to excite an interest in 
ascertaining their true meaning, without reference 
to the general subject of this volume. Their ex- 
planation rests on facts and principles important 
to be known and attended to in the study of the 
New Testament. But there are others brought 
forward by Trinitarians of which the same cannot 
be said, and which require only a very brief and 
general notice. 

I have endeavored to show, that whenever a Trin- 
itarian meaning is given to any passage, it is given 
in violation of a fundamental rule of interpretation. 
But there are passages adduced, in the senses assigned 
to which, not merely this rule is violated, but the most 
obvious and indisputable characteristics of language 
are disregarded, and the reasoning proceeds upon the 
assumption that they do not exist. Thus, for exam- 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 305 

pie, it is said in Isaiah (xliii. 11), according to the 
Common Version: "I, even I, am the Lord, and 
beside me there is no saviour." But Christ, it is 
argued, is our Saviour ; and, as it is proyed by 
this passage that there can be no saviour but 
God, it follows that Christ is God. The reason- 
ing proceeds upon the assumption that the same 
word is always used in the same sense, with the 
same reference, and in the whole extent of its 
signification ; and the monstrous conclusions that 
would result from applying this argument to other 
individuals beside Christ, to whom the name "Sav- 
iour " is or may be given, are put out of sight.* 

* [See 2 Kings xiii. 5 ; Nehemiah ix. 27 ; Isaiah xix. 20 ; Oba- 
diah2l. 

Some Trinitarians have quoted in proof of the deity of Christ a 
few passages in which they suppose the title " God our Saviour" to 
be applied to him. The following are all the passages of the New 
Testament in which this expression occurs : 1 Timothy i. 1 ; ii. 3 ; 
Titus i. 3 ; ii. 10 ; iii. 4 ; and Jude 25. See also Luke i. 47 ; 1 Tim- 
othy iv. 10. 

In some of these texts, as 1 Timothy i. 1, Titus iii. 4-6, the being 
who is called "God our Saviour" is expressly distinguished from 
Christ ; and one need only compare the others with these, and with 
their context, to perceive that it is not only without evidence, but 
against all evidence, that any of them are referred to Christ. A large 
majority of Trinitarian commentators recognize this fact. 

In Jude 25 the best ancient manuscripts and versions, and other' 
authorities for settling the text, read, " To the only God our Saviour, 
through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory," &c. This reading 
is adopted by Griesbach, Knapp, Schott, Tittmann, Vater, Scholz, 
Lachmann, Hahn, Tischendorf, Theile, and nearly all modern critics. 
There can be no reasonable doubt of its genuineness. 

We may here notice also 2 Peter i. 1 and Titus ii. 13, in which it 
has been maintained, on the ground of the omission of the Greek 
article, that Christ is called " our God and Saviour." and " our greai 



306 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

On misinterpretations such as this it would be 
useless to dwell. No information can be given, no 
thoughts can be suggested, which are not obvious 
to every reader who will exercise his own under- 
standing ; and to him who will not, all assistance 
must be in vain. 

Thus, then, with one exception, which we will 
immediately consider, we have taken a general 
view of the manner in which the passages adduced 
by Trinitarians are to be explained. 

God and Saviour." As to the argument founded on the omission of 
the article, it is not necessary to add anything to what has already 
been said. (See p. 199, note.) But it is urged by Professor Stuart 
and others, in respect to Titus ii. 13, that the "appearing" of God 
the Father is never foretold in the New Testament, and therefore 
that "the great God" here spoken of must be Christ. The answer 
to this is, that, according to the literal and correct translation of the 
original, it is not "the appearing" but "the appearing of the glory, 
imtyaveiav ttjs So^s, of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus 
Christ," of which the Apostle speaks: and that our Saviour did ex- 
pressly declare that he should come " in the glory of his Father." 
See Matthew xvi. 27 ; Mark viii. 38 ; Luke ix. 26 ; and compare 
1 Timothy vi. 14-16. Professor Stuart admits that "the whole 

argument, so far as the article is concerned, falls to the ground." 

(Biblical Repository for April 1834, p. 323.) The title "the great 
God" in this passage is referred to the Father by Erasmus, Grotius, 
Le Clerc, Wetstein, Doddridge, Macknight, Abp. Newcome, Rosen- 
mailer, Heinrichs, Schott, Winer, Neander (Planting and Training, 
I. 509, note, Bonn's cd.), De Wette, Meyer (on Romans ix 5), 
Huthsr, Conybeare and Howson, and others.] 



EXPLANATIONS OF TH J Ni W Tl STAIVTiUT. 30 

CLASS VITI. 
The Introduction of S\ j vhrf Go% >el. 

We will now attend to a passage that h r Leeo 
misunderstood through ignorance o disregard o: 
the opinions and modes of conception \\ hich th< 
writer, St. John, had in mind. This is the intro 
duction, or proem, .as it has bren called, of h? 
Gospel. 

" In the beginning was the Logos, and the Le- 
gos was with God, and the Logos was God." 

There is no word in English answering to the 
Greek word Logos, as here used. It was employed 
to denote a mode of conception concerning thr 
Deity, familiar at the time when St. John wrote 
and intimately blended with the philosophy of hi 
age, but long since obsolete, and so foreign frorr 
our habits of thinking, that it is not easy for ui 
to conform our minds to its apprehension. Thr 
Greek word Logos, in one of its primary senses 
answered nearly to our word Reason. It denoted 
that faculty by which the mind disposes its ideal 
in their proper relations to each other ; the Dispos- 
ing Power, if I may so speak, of the mind. In 
reference to this primary sense, it was applied to 
the Deity, but in a wider significance. The Logos 
of God was regarded, not in its strictest sense, as 
merely the Reason of God ; but, under certain 
aspects, as the Wisdom, the Mind, the Intellect 
of God. To this the creation of all things was 



*i08 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 

especially ascribed. The conception may seem ob« 
vious in itself; but the cause why the creation 
was primarily referred to the Logos or Intellect of 
God, rather than to his goodness or omnipotence, 
is to be found in the Platonic philosophy, as it ex- 
isted about the time of Christ, and particularly as 
taught by the eminent Jewish philosopher, Philo 
of Alexandria. 

According to this philosophy, there existed an 
archetypal world of Ideas, formed by God, the per- 
fect model of the sensible universe ; corresponding, 
so far as what is divine may be compared with 
what is human, to the plan of a building or city 
which an architect forms in his own mind before 
commencing its erection. The faculty by which 
God disposed and arranged the world of Ideas 
was his Logos, Reason, or Intellect. This world, 
according to one representation, was supposed 
to haye its seat in the Logos or Mind of God; 
according to another, it was identified with the 
Logos. The Platonic philosophy further taught, 
that the Ideas of God were not merely the arche- 
types, but, in scholastic language, the essentia] 
forms, of all created things.* In this philosophy 
matter in its primary state, primitive matter, if 
may so speak, was regarded merely as the sub- 
stratum of attributes, being in itself devoid of all, 
Attributes, it was conceived, were impressed upon 
it by the Ideas of God, which Philo often speaks 

* [For an account of Plato's doctrine of Ideas, see the author's 
Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. IIL Additional 
Note A.] 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 309 

of under the figure of seals. These Ideas, indeed, 
constituted those attributes, becoming connected 
with primitive matter in an incomprehensible man- 
ner, and thus giving form and being to all things 
sensible. But the seat of these Ideas, these for- 
mative principles, being the Logos or Intellect of 
God, — or, according to the other representation 
mentioned, these Ideas constituting the Logos, — 
the Logos was, in consequence, represented as the 
great agent in creation. This doctrine being set- 
tled, the meaning of the term gradually extended 
itself by a natural process, and came at last to 
comprehend all the attributes of God manifested in 
the creation and government of the universe. These 
attributes, abstractly from God himself, were made 
an object of thought under the name of the Logos. 
The Logos thus conceived of was necessarily per 
sonified or spoken of figuratively as a person. In 
our own language, in describing its agency, — 
agency in its nature personal and to be ultimately 
referred to God, — we might indeed avoid attach- 
ing a personal character to the Logos considered 
abstractly from God, by the use of the neuter pro- 
noun it. Thus we might say, All things were 
made by it. But the Greek language afforded 
no such resource, the relative pronoun in concord 
with Logos being necessarily masculine. Thus 
the Logos or Intellect of God came to be, figu- 
ratively or literally, conceived of as an interme- 
diate being between God and his creatures, the 
great agent in the creation and government of 
the universe. 



310 EXPLANATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Obsolete as this mode of conception has now 
become, there is a foundation for it in the nature 
of the being contemplated, and of the human 
mind. The Deity conceived of as existing within 
himself, removed from all distinct apprehension of 
created intelligences, dwelling alone in his unap- 
proachable and unimaginable infinity of perfec- 
tions, presents a different object to the mind from 
the Deity operating around us and within us, and 
manifesting himself, as it were, even to our senses. 
It is not strange, therefore, that these two concep- 
tions of him have been regarded apart, and more 
or less separated from each other. The notion of 
the Logos, it is true, is obsolete ; but we find 
something analogous to it in the use of the term 
Nature in modern times. Employed as this often 
is, the mind seems to rest in some indistinct notion 
of an agency inferior to the Supreme, or an agency, 
to say the least, which is not referred directly to 
God. 

The conception and the name of the Logos 
were familiar at the time when St. John wrote. 
They occur in the Apocryphal book of the Wisdom 
of Solomon. The writer, speaking of the destruc- 
tion of the first-born of the Egyptians, says (ch. 
xviii. 15) : — 

" Thine almighty Logos leaped down from heav- 
en, from his royal throne, a fierce warrior, into the 
midst of a land of destruction. " 

In another passage, likewise, in the prayer 
ascribed to Solomon, he is represented as thus 
addressing God (ch. ix. 1, 2) : — 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 311 

" God of our fathers, and Lord of mercy, 
Who hast made all things by thy Logos, 
And fashioned man by thy Wisdom." 

The terms, the Logos of God, and the Wisdom of 
God, are here used as nearly equivalent in signifi- 
cation. A certain distinction was sometimes made 
between them ; but they were often considered as 
the same. In the book just quoted we find strong 
personifications of Wisdom,* considered as an at- 
tribute of God, and described in such language 
as was afterwards applied to the Logos. In the 
Proverbs there are similar personifications of Wis- 
dom,! which the Christian Fathers commonly un- 
derstood of the Logos. 

The use of the word " Logos,'' in the sense that 
has been assigned to it, was derived from the Pla- 
tonic philosophy. But we find among the Jews a 
similar mode of conceiving and speaking of the 
operations of God, unconnected with this philoso- 
phy, and appearing in the use of a different term, 
the Spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit. By either 
expression, in its primary theological sense, was 
intended those attributes, or that power of God, 
which operated among men to produce effects that 
were believed to be conformable to his will, as 
manifested in the laws of his moral government. 
Thus the miracles of a teacher from God, the 
direct influences of God upon the minds of men, 
and all causes tending to advance men in excel- 
lence, moral and intellectual, were referred to the 

* Ch. vii., viii., x. 

t Ch. viii. See also ch. i. 20, seqq. ; ch. iii. 1 9. 
31 



312 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Holy Spirit. The idea of its invisible operation 
was associated with it. To express what has been 
said in different terms, it denoted the unseen Power 
of God, acting upon the minds of men in the direct 
or indirect production of moral goodness, or intel- 
lectual ability, in the communication of truth, and 
in the conferring of supernatural powers. The con- 
ception is of the same class with that of the Logos ; 
and the Holy Spirit is in some instances strongly 
personified, as by our Saviour in his last discourse 
with his Apostles. The divine Power which was 
manifested in Christ might be ascribed indifferently 
to the Spirit, or to the Logos, of God, as the reader 
or hearer was more conversant with the one term 
or the other. St. John, writing in Asia Minor, 
where many for whom he intended his Gospel 
were familiar with the conception of the Logos, 
has, probably for this reason, adopted the term 
" Logos," in the proem of his Gospel, to express 
that manifestation of God by Christ which is else- 
where referred to the Spirit of God.* 

* It may be observed, that, amid the confusion and inconsistency 
of those conceptions of the earlier Fathers which afterwards settled 
into the doctrine of the Trinity, we often find the Holy Spirit and 
the Logos spoken of as the same power of God. Thus Justin Mar- 
tyr, in reference to the miraculous conception of Christ, says (Apolo- 
gia Prima, c. 33. p. 54) : " We must not understand by the Spirit 
and the power from God anything different from the Logos, who is 
the First-born of God." Theophilus of Antioch says (Ad Autolycum, 
Lib. II. § 10), that "the Logos is the Spirit of God and his Wisdom"; 
though he elsewhere (Ibid. § 15 et § 18) makes a Trinity of God, his 
Logos, and his Wisdom. The Wisdom of God was commonly con 
ceived of as the Logos of God, but Irenaeus, like Theophilus, gives 
the former name to the Holy Spirit. (See Lib. IV. c. 20.) Ter* 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 313 

But to return. The conception that has been 
described having been formed of the Logos, and 
the Logos being, as I have said, necessarily per- 
sonified, or spoken of figuratively as a person, it 
soon followed, as a natural consequence, that the 
Logos was by many hypostatized or conceived of 
as a proper person.* When the corrective of ex- 
perience and actual knowledge cannot be applied, 
what is strongly imagined is very likely to be re- 
garded as having a real existence ; and the philos 
ophy of the ancients was composed in great part 
of such imaginations. The Logos, it is to be rec- 
ollected, was that power by which God disposed 
in order the Ideas of the archetypal world. But 
in particular reference to the creation of the ma- 
terial universe, the Logos came in time to be con- 
ceived of by many as hypostatized, as a proper 
person going forth, as it were, from God in order 
to execute the plan prepared, to dispose and ar 
range all things conformably to it, and to give 

tullian says (Advers. Praxeam, c. 26) : " The Spirit of God [the 
Spirit spoken of in the account of the miraculous conception] is the 
same as the Logos. For as, when John says, The Logos was made 
flesh, we by the Logos understand the Spirit, so here we perceive the 
Logos to be intended under the name of the Spirit. For as the Spirit 
is the substance of the Logos, so the Logos is the operation of the 
Spirit ; and the two are one thing. What ! when John said that 
the Logos was made flesh, and the angel, that the Spirit was to be 
made flesh, did they mean anything different ? " See also c. 14 ; 
Advers. Marcion. Lib. Y. c. 8, et alibi ssepe ; Irenaeus, Cont. Haeres. 
Lib. V. c. 1. § 2. 

* It will be convenient in what follows to use the terms personify 
and hypostatic with their correlatives, as distinguished from each 
other according to the senses assigned them in the text. 



314 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 

sensible forms to primitive matter, by impressing it 
with the Ideas of the archetypal world. In many 
cases in which the term " Logos " occurs, if we 
understand by it the Disposing Power of God in 
a sense conformable to the notions explained, we 
may have a clearer idea of its meaning, than if we 
render it by the term " Reason," or " Wisdom," or 
any other which our language offers. 

In the writings of Philo, who was contemporary 
with our Saviour, we find the Logos clearly and 
frequently hypostatized. According to him, con- 
sidered as a person, the Logos is a god. In a 
passage which has been closely imitated by Ori- 
gen, he says : " Let us inquire if there are really 
two Gods." He answers: u The true God is one, 
but there are many who, in a less strict use of lan- 
guage, are called gods." The true God, he says, 
is denoted by that name with the article ; others 
have it without the article ; and thus his most ven- 
erable Logos is called God without the article.* 
" No one," he says, " can comprehend the nature of 
God ; it is well if we can comprehend his name, 
that is, the Logos, his interpreter ; for he may be 
considered, perhaps, as the god of us imperfect 
beings, but the Most High as the God of the 
wise and perfect."! He represents the Logos as 

* De Somniis, Lib. I. c. 39. Opp. I. 655. Comp Origen's Com- 
ment, in Joan. Tom. II. Opp. IV. 50, 51. Clement of Alexandria, re- 
marking on Genesis iv. 25, says, Ov yap Gcov an\cos TrpocrciTrev 6 rj 
tov apBpov TTpora^ei top iravroKparopa brjkcocras. — Stromat. IH 
{ 12. p. 548. [See before, p. 120, note.] 

t Legg. Allegorr. Lib. III. c. 73. Opp. I. 128. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 315 

the instrument (opyavov) of God in the creation 
of the universe; as the image of God, by whom 
the universe was fashioned ; as used by him, like 
a helm, in directing the course of all things ; as 
he who himself sits at the helm and orders all 
things ; and as his first-born son, his vicegerent 
in the government of the world.* " Those," says 
Philo, "who have true knowledge [knowledge of 

God] are rightly called sons of God Let 

him, then, who is not yet worthy to be called a 
son of God, strive to fashion himself to the re- 
semblance of God's first-born Logos, the most 
ancient angel, being, as it were, an archangel with 
many titles." f A little after, he calls the Logos 
w the eternal image of God " ; and elsewhere 
applies to him the epithet " eternal." He repre- 
sents the Logos as a mediator between God and 
his creatures. " To the archangel, the most an- 
cient Logos, God freely granted the high dis- 
tinction of standing between and separating the 
creation from its Creator. With the immortal 
being, he intercedes for what is mortal and perish- 
ing. He announces the will of the Ruler to his 
subjects. Being neither unoriginated like God, 
nor originated like man, but standing between 
the two extremes, he is a hostage to both ; being 
a pledge to the Creator that the whole race of 

* De Cherubim, c. 35. I. 162. De Monarchic, Lib. II. c. 5. Opp. 
II. 225. De Migrat. Abrahami, c. 1. I. 437. De Cherubim, c. 11. 
I. 145. De Agricultura, c. 12. I. 308. 

t De Confusione Linguarum, c. 28. I. 426, 427. [See before 
pp. 220, 221.] 

31* 



316 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

men shall never fall away and revolt, preferring 
disorder to order; and giving assurance to the 
creature that the God of Mercy will never neglect 
what he has made." * 

Such conceptions are expressed by Philo con- 
cerning the Logos as a person. If his represen- 
tations of him, so far as they have been quoted, 
are not perfectly consistent, they do not imply that 
he wavered much in the view of his character; 
and these representations were received by the 
early Fathers as the groundwork of their doctrine 
concerning the personal Logos. But upon further 
examination, the opinions of Philo will appear 
more unsettled and unsteady ; and new concep- 
tions will present themselves. To these we shall 
advert hereafter. It is only necessary here to ob- 
serve, that in his opinions relating to this subject 
there was little fixedness or consistency. The 
images which floated before his mind changed 
their forms. Throughout his writings, he often 
speaks of the personal agency of the Deity in lan- 
guage as simple as that of the Old Testament. 
In a large portion of the passages in which he 
makes mention of the Logos, it may be doubted 
whether he conceived of it, for the time, otherwise 
than as an attribute or attributes of God. On the 
other hand, it is also to be observed, that the influ- 
ence of his Platonism, when it was ascendant in his 
mind, did not terminate in hypostatizing the Logos 
alone among the powers or attributes of God. 

* Quis Rerum Divinarum Haeres, c. 42. I. 501, 502. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 317 

From the explanations which have been given 
of the conceptions concerning the Logos of God, 
it will appear that this term properly denoted an 
attribute or attributes of God ; and that upon the 
notion of an attribute or attributes the idea of per- 
sonality was superinduced. Let us now consider 
the probable meaning of the first words of St. 
John's Gospel. 

14 In the beginning was the Logos, and the Lo- 
gos was with God, and the Logos was God." 

These words admit, I think, only of two ex- 
planations. Either St. John used the word " Lo- 
gos" simply to denote the conception of those 
attributes of God which are manifested in the 
creation and government of the universe ; and in 
the last clause intended to declare, that, in the 
contemplation of them, no other being but God is 
to be contemplated, and that all their operations 
are to be referred directly to him ; — or he meant 
to speak of those attributes as hypostatized, and 
to represent the Logos of God as a proper person 
(such as he is described by Philo), the minister 
and vicegerent of God, who, always acting by the 
power, and conformably to the will, of God, might 
rhetorically be called God, according to the figure 
by which we transfer to an agent the name of his 
principal. 

It is contended, indeed, that his words admit of 
a different meaning; that the Logos is here spoken 
of as a proper person ; but that this person is, at 
the same time, declared to be, literally, God. But 
if we so understand St. John, his words will express 



318 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

a contradiction in terms. " The Logos," he says, 
"was with God," which, if the Logos be a per- 
son, necessarily implies that he is a different person 
from God. Whoever is with any being must be 
diverse from that being with w T hom he is. As far, 
then, as we may be assured that St. John did not 
affirm an absurdity in terms, so far we may be 
assured that he did not affirm that the Logos, 
being a person with God, was also, literally, God. 
Of the Evangelist we may here say, as Tertullian 
says concerning another passage quoted from him : 
" Secundum omnia [in suo evangelio] potius quam 
adversus omnia, etiam adversus suos sensus inter- 
pretandus " ; — u He is to be explained conforma- 
bly to all, rather than in opposition to all that he 
has elsewhere written, and in opposition, too, to 
the sense of the words themselves."* Here, there- 
fore, we dismiss the Trinitarian exposition, and 
proceed to consider how the passage is to be un- 
derstood. 

We have now only to choose between the two 
explanations first given. St. John, has personified, 
or he has hypostatized the Logos. He has spoken 
of the Logos simply as of the attributes, or, as we 
may say, the Power of God, manifested in his 
works ; or he has adopted the philosophy of some 
of his contemporaries, and intended to represent 
this Power as a person. 

Whether St. John did or did not adopt this Pla- 
tonic conception, is a question not important to be 
settled in order to determine our own judgment 

* [Tertullian. ad vers. Praxeam, c. 26.] 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 319 

concerning its truth. But that he did not, is ren- 
dered probable by his not alluding to it elsewhere 
in his Gospel, and by his never in any other place 
introducing an intermediate agent between God 
and his creation, or referring the Divine Power 
manifested in Christ to any other being but God 
himself. It is unlikely that he would receive a 
doctrine of this kind, which had not been taught 
by his Master ; and neither he nor any other of the 
Evangelists has recorded that this doctrine was 
taught by Christ. The nature of the doctrine 
itself, which presents the strange conception of an 
hypostatized attribute or attributes, would alone 
forbid the supposition of its having such an origin. 
It is clearly traced to a different source, to a phi- 
losophy which, considering St. John's intellectual 
habits and his manner of life, was not likely to 
have a strong influence over his mind. 

But, setting aside these considerations, the pas- 
sage itself affords, perhaps, sufficient reason for 
believing that the Evangelist did not intend to 
speak of an hypostatized Logos. " The Logos," 
he says, " was God," that is, the Supreme Being. 
If we conceive of the Logos as a person, the agent 
of God, those words considered in themselves ad- 
mit, as I have said, of a figurative sense. But 
they would express an assertion which is made by 
no other writer who entertained this conception of 
the Logos. Philo, or the earlier Christian Fathers, 
would, equally, have shrunk from asserting the 
Logos to be God, as the word " God" is used by 
us. The earlier Fathers understood the term 



320 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

"god," as here used by St. John, in an inferior 
sense, regarding it as denoting what we might 
express in English by saying, that the Logos was 
a " divine being." Bat this, unquestionably, is 
not its true sense. St. John, having just used the 
word ©eos, " God," to denote the Supreme Being, 
would not in the next clause thus vary its signifi- 
cation ; and corresponding likewise to what I have 
before observed,* his general use of this term, like 
that of the other Apostles and Evangelists, was 
the same with our own use of the name " God." 
Assuming, then, that the word 0eo?, " God," in the 
passage before us, denotes the Deity, what purpose 
or inducement could St. John have had to assert, 
in a figurative sense, that the Logos was the Deity, 
upon the supposition that he believed the Logos 
to be a distinct person, the agent of the Deity? 
I think none can be conjectured. 

Thus far, I have been arguing merely against 
the supposition, that St. John adopted the Platonic 
conception of an hypostatized Logos. But as to 
the further supposition, that he believed his Mas- 
ter, Jesus Christ, to have been not a man, properly 
speaking, but that Logos clothed in flesh, it is here 
sufficient, after all that has been said, to remark its 
inconsistency with the whole character of his narra- 
tive and those of the other Evangelists, and with 
every other part of the New Testament. Had St. 
John believed his Master to be an incarnation of a 
great being, to whom the name Logos might be 
applied, superior to all other beings except God 

* See before, pp. 300, 301. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 321 

we could, with our present view of the character of 
the Apostle, assign no other ground for this belief 
than an assurance of the fact, resting upon mirac- 
ulous evidence. Had he, then, held this belief, 
he would everywhere have spoken of his Master 
conformably to it. Christ would have appeared 
throughout his Gospel and the other Gospels, not 
as a man, which he was not, but as the incarnate 
Logos, which he was. No reason can be assigned 
why he should not have been usually denominated 
by that name, his real character kept constantly in 
view, and all his words, actions, and sufferings cor- 
rectly represented as those of the agent interme- 
diate between God and his universe. 

Let us now examine whether the language of 
the Apostle can be better explained, if we under- 
stand him as using the term " Logos " merely to 
denote the attributes of God manifested in his 
works. It was his purpose, in the introduction of 
his Gospel, to declare that Christianity had the 
same divine origin as the universe itself; that it 
was to be considered as proceeding from the same 
power of God. Writing in Asia Minor, for readers 
by many of whom the term " Logos " was more 
familiarly used than any other to express the attri- 
butes of God viewed in relation to his creatures, 
he adopted this term to convey his meaning, be- 
cause, from their associations with it, it was fitted 
particularly to impress and affect their minds ; 
Ihus connecting the great truth which he taught 
with their former modes of thinking and speaking. 
But upon the idea primarily expressed by this 



322 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

term, a new conception, the conception of the 
proper personality of those attributes, had been 
superinduced. This doctrine, then, the doctrine of 
an nypostatized Logos, it appears to have been his 
purpose to set aside. He would guard himself, I 
think, against being understood to countenance it. 
The Logos, he teaches, was not the agent of God, 
but God himself. Using the term merely to de- 
note the attributes of God as manifested in his 
works, he teaches that the operations of the Logos 
are the operations of God ; that all conceived of 
under that name is to be referred immediately to 
God ; that in speaking of the Logos we speak of 
God, " that the Logos is God." 

The Platonic conception of a personal Logos, 
distinct from God, was the embryo form of the 
Christian Trinity. If, therefore, the view just 
given of the purpose of St. John be correct, it is 
a remarkable fact, that his language has been al- 
leged as a main support of that very doctrine, the 
rudiments of which it was intended to oppose. 

Considering how prevalent was the conception 
of the Logos as a distinct being from God, it is 
difficult to suppose that St. John did not have it 
in mind. But it is to be observed, that the pre- 
ceding explanation of his words is independent of 
this supposition, and that they are to be under- 
stood in the same manner, whether they are sup- 
posed to refer to that conception or not. 

It is, then, of the attributes of God as displayed 
in the creation and government of the world, that 
St. John speaks under the name of "the Logos." 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 323 

To this name we have none equivalent in English, 
for we have not the conception which it was in- 
tended to express. In rendering the first eighteen 
verses of St. John's Gospel, I shall adopt the term 
M Power of God." It is, perhaps, as nearly equiva- 
lent as any that we can conveniently use. But in 
order to enter into the meaning of the passage, we 
must associate with this term, not the meaning 
alone which the English words might suggest ac- 
cording to their common use, but the whole notion 
of the Logos as present to the mind of the Apostle. 
Adopting this term, we may say that the Power 
of God, personified, is the subject of the introduc- 
tory verses of his Gospel. It is first said to be 
God, and afterwards declared to have become a 
man. It is first regarded in its relation to God in 
whom it resides, and afterwards in its relation to 
Jesus through whom it was manifested. Viewed 
in the former relation, what may be said of the 
Power of God is true of God ; the terms become 
identical in their purport. Viewed in the latter re- 
lation, whatever is true of the Power of God itj 
true of Christ, considered as the minister of God. 
His words were the words of God, his miracles 
were performed by the power of God. In the use 
of such figurative language, the leading term sel- 
dom preserves throughout the same determinate 
significance ; its meaning varies, assuming a new 
aspect according to the relations in which it is pre- 
sented. Thus, an attribute may be spoken of as 
personified, then simply as an attribute, and then, 
again, as identified with the subject in which it 

32 



324 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

resides, or the agent through whom it is manifested 
In regard to the personification of the Logos by St 
John, which is a principal source of embarrassment 
to a modern reader, it was, as I have said, insep- 
arable from the terms in which the conception was 
expressed, the actions ascribed to the Logos being 
of a personal character, and the use of the neuter 
pronoun being precluded by the syntax of the 
Greek language. St. John, then, says : — 

" In the beginning was the Power of God, and 
the Power of God was with God, and the Power 
of God was God. He was in the beginning with 
God. All things were made by him, and without 
him nothing was made which was made. In him 
was the source of blessedness ;* and the source of 
blessedness was the light for man. And the*light 
is shining in darkness ; though the darkness was 
not penetrated by it. 

11 There was a man sent from God, whose name 
was John. This man came as a witness, to bear 
testimony concerning the light, that all might be- 
lieve through him. He was not the light, but he 
came to bear testimony concerning the light. The 

* Zodtj, rendered in the Common Version life. It is here, however, 
used in the sense of blessedness, as often in the New Testament. But 
the blessedness spoken of is that which is communicated, not that which 
is enjoyed, by the Logos. I do not perceive, therefore, that the sense 
of the original can be expressed more concisely in English than by 
the words which I have used. This blessedness is communicated 
through the revelation of religious truth ; the intellectual light; — not 
u of men," but " for men." In other words, the revelation made by 
the Power of God through Christ, which is the light of the moral 
fcrorld, is the source of blessedness to men. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESVAMENT. 325 

true light,* which shines on every man, was com- 
ing into the world. He was in the world, 5nd by 
him the world was made, and the world acknowl- 
edged him not. He came to his peculiar posses- 
sion, and his peculiar people received him not. 
But to as many as received him he gave a title to 
be children of God, — to those who had faith in 
him, — they being born not of any peculiar race,f 
nor through the will of the flesh, nor through the 
will of man, but being children of God. 

" And the Power of God became a man,J and 
dwelt among us, full of favor and truth ; and we 
beheld his glory, such as an only son receives from 
a father. John bore testimony concerning him, 
and proclaimed, This is he of whom I said, He 
who was to come after me has gone before me, for 
he was my superior. — Of his inexhaustible store 
we all have received, even favor upon favor. For 

* " The true light," that is, the Power of God, the Logos ; so called 
because he is the source of the light, the revealer of religious truth. 

t Ovk. ef alfidrcov, literally, not of (particular) races, alfia being 
here used in the sense of race, as in Acts xvii. 26, and by profane, 
writers. Blood in English is used in a similar sense ; as in the ex- 
pression, " They were of the same blood." The meaning of the whole 
thirteenth verse is, that the blessings of the Gospel were not confined 
to any particular race, as that of the Jews ; and that none received 
them on the ground of natural descent, as children of Abraham and 
the other patriarchs. 

J 2ap£ iyev€To, rendered in the Common Version, "became flesh." 
The word o-ap£, in its primitive meaning flesh, is often used to de- 
note man. When it is said that the Logos, or the Power of God, be- 
came a man, the meaning is that the Power of God was manifested 
in and exercised through a man. It is afterward, by a figurative use 
of language, identified with Christ, in whom it is conceived of as re- 
siding. 



326 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

the Law was given by Moses, the Favor and the 
Truth* came by Jesus Christ. No man has evei 
seen God ; the only Son, who is on the bosom of 
the Father, he has made him known." 

In a note on this passage, I have explained the 
words, " the Logos became flesh," or " the Power 
of God became a man," as meaning that "the 
power of God was manifested in a man," that " it 
was exercised through him," "it resided in him." 
To one familiar with the uses of figurative lan- 
guage, the interpretation may appear obvious. 
Some Trinitarians, however, may object to it as 
forced. I would, therefore, ask him who believes 
that by the Logos is meant the second person of 
the Trinity, to consider the exposition which he 
himself puts upon the words. According to this, 
the second person of the Trinity, the Son, who is 
himself God, became a man, or, to adopt the ren- 
dering of the Common Version, was made flesh. 
God became a man, or was made flesh. By the 
word rendered became or was made, the Trinitarian 
understands to be meant, that he was hypostatically 
united to a man, was so united to a man as to con- 
stitute with him but one person. It is a sense of the 
Greek word eyevero not to be found elsewhere ; to 
say nothing of the meaning of the whole sentence, 
if it may be called a meaning, which results from 
giving eyevero this unauthorized signification. The 
Antitrinitarian, on the other hand, understands the 

* " The Favor and the Truth," f) x<*pt>s <a\ f) aXrjdeta. These terms 
are here used to denote the Christian dispensation, the religion of 
mercy and *ruth. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 327 

woru as equivalent to " became," in that figurative 
sense in which we say that one thing is, or be- 
comes, another, when it manifests its properties 
in that other thing so spoken of. He perceives 
as little difficulty in the language, as in that with 
which Thomson commences his Hymn on the 
Seasons: — 

" These, as they change, Almighty Father, these 
Are but the varied God." 

As the Seasons are figuratively called God, be- 
cause God in them displays his attributes, so the 
Logos is figuratively called a man, because in 
Christ were manifested the same Divine Power, 
Wisdom, and Goodness by which the universe 
was created. 

It is by no means uncommon to find in the 
same passage an attribute or a quality, now 
viewed in the abstract and personified, and then 
presented to the imagination as embodied in an 
individual or individuals. Thus Thomson, on the 
same page in the volume before me from which I 
made the last quotation, says: — 

" Heaven-born Truth 
Wore the red marks of Superstition's scourge." 

It is Truth considered in the abstract, which is 
described as heaven-born, or revealed from heaven ; 
it is those who held the truth who were scourged 
by Superstition. Other similar examples might 
be adduced. I will give one expressly conformed 
in its general character to the passage under con- 
sideration, in which no person accustomed to the 
.32 • 



328 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

use of figurative language will suppose that its 
proper limits are transgressed. 

Goodness is seated on the throne of God, and 
directs his omnipotence. It is the blessedness of all 
holy and happy beings to contemplate her, the Su- 
preme Beauty, and become more and more conformed 
to her image. It is by her that the universe is at- 
tuned, and filled with harmony. She descended from 
heaven, and in the person of Christ displayed her 
loveliness; and called men to obey her laws, and 
enter her kingdom of light and joy. But she ad- 
dressed those ivhom their vices and bigotry had made 
blind and deaf She was rejected, despised, hated, 
persecuted, crucified. 

It may appear from what has been said, that the 
figure by which St. John speaks of the Logos as 
becoming a man, or, in other words, of Christ as 
being the Logos, belongs to a class in common 
use. But it might have been sufficient at once to 
observe, that analogous modes of expression are 
used even by Philo, though he regarded the Logos 
as a proper person. Considering the Logos as the 
agent of God in the creation and government of 
all, the being through whom God is manifested, 
Philo applies that name to other beings, the agents 
of God's will. In this use of the term, it may 
seem that, the Logos being viewed as the pri- 
mal, universal manifestation of God, all particular 
manifestations are referred to it by Philo, as parts 
to a whole ; — or the one Logos is supposed to act 
in every particular Logos, using all as its minis- 
tors. However this may be, he familiarlv calls the 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 329 

angels "Logoi"* (in the plural), and applies the 
term also to men. Thus he speaks of Moses as 
"the lawgiving Logos," as "the divine Logos," 
and, when he interceded for the Israelites, as "the 
supplicating Logos of God."f Aaron is called 
" the sacred Logos." J The same title is given to 
Phinehas, upon occasion of his staying the plague 
in the Jewish camp.§ And the high-priest is re- 
peatedly called " Logos." || Such language being 
common, the contemporaries of St. John would 
readily understand him, when he spoke of the 
Logos becoming a man, or of Christ as being the 
Logos. When, afterwards, the Christian Fathers, 
regarding the Logos as hypostatized, supposed it 
to have become incarnate in Christ, they, of course, 
put a new sense upon the words of the Apostle. 

I may here take notice of a supposed analogy, 
which I believe does not exist, between the intro- 
ductory verses of St. John's Gospel and those with 
which he commences his First Epistle. In the 
latter, by the expression rendered in the Common 
Version "word of life" (\oyo<; tt)$ £g"7<?), he in- 
tends, I think, merely the Christian doctrine, " the 
life-giving doctrine " ; and has no reference to the 
philosophical notion of the Logos of God. This 

* De Posteritate Caini, c. 26. I. 242. De Confusione Linguarnm, 
c. 8. I. 409, et alibi ssepe. [See Christian Examiner for May 1836, 
Vol. XX. p. 229.] 

t De Migrat. Abrahami, cc. 5, 15, 21. I. 440, 449, 455. 

X Legg. Allegorr. Lib. I. c. 24. Opp. I. 59. 

$ Quis Rerum divinarum Haeres, c. 42. I. 501. 

11 De Gigantibus, c. 11. I. 269. De Migrat. Abrahami, c. 18. 1. 452. 



330 EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

expression, and others similar, are used elsewhere 
in the New Testament in the same sense.* The 
commencement of the Epistle may be thus ren- 
dered : — 

" What took place from the beginning,! what 
we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, 
what we have beheld, and our hands have handled, 
concerning the life-giving doctrine ; — for Life has 
been revealed, and we saw and bear testimony, 
and announce to you that Eternal Life which was 
with the Father, and has been revealed to us; — 
what we have seen and heard, we announce to 
you, so that you may share with us, whose lot is 
with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ." 

Notwithstanding the coincidence of some words, 
used in different senses, it is obvious that the pur- 
pose of St. John in the passage just quoted was 
wholly different from that which appears in the 
introduction of his Gospel. In the latter he in- 
tended to affirm that the Christian revelation was 
to be referred to the same Divine "Wisdom, Good- 
ness, and Power by which the world was created 
and is governed. In the first verses of his Epistle 

* See Philippians ii. 16; Acts v. 20; John vi. 63, 68; Romans 
riii. 2, etc. 

t That is, "from the beginning of the Christian dispensation." 
The terms, air apXl s i or ef apxrjs, from the beginning, commonly 
occur in St. John's writings in reference to the beginning of a period 
determined only by the connection in which the words occur. Thus 
in the second chapter of this Epistle, verse 7, he says : u Beloved, I 
write you no new commandment, but an old commandment, which 
you have had from the beginning [rather, from the first]. 11 See also 
Epistle, ii. 24 ; Hi. 11 ; Gospel, vi. 64 ; xv. 27 ; xvi. 4, etc. 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 331 

he merely affirms that what he had taught con- 
cerning this revelation rested upon his own per- 
sonal knowledge, upon the testimony of his senses.* 

We will here conclude our examination of pas- 
sages adduced by Trinitarians. I have remarked 
upon those which will generally be considered as 
most important, and it would be useless to pro- 
ceed further. As to any of which I have omitted 
to take notice, it will be easy to apply to them the 
principles and facts which have been stated and 
illustrated. 

In treating of the Proem of St. John's Gospel, 
we have had occasion partially to consider the doc- 
trine of the Platonic Logos, the germ of the Chris- 
tian Trinity. In the next section I shall proceed 
to give some further account of it, and of the con- 
ceptions connected with it ; my purpose being to 
bring into view some particulars, not generally 
attended to, concerning the origin, relations, and 
character of the doctrine of the Trinity as it existed 
during the first four centuries. 

* There is a passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews (iv. 12, 13), and 
another in the Apocalypse (xix. 13), in which the conception of the 
Logos as an attribute or attributes of God appears to be introduced, 
as in the introduction of St. John's Gospel. But it would not be to 
our present purpose to remark upon them further. 



SECTION X. 

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 

It is in the writings of Philo that we find the 
doctrine of the Logos first developed ; and his con- 
ceptions concerning this, as well as other subjects 
connected with theology, deserve to be attentively 
studied, 

Philo, it will be recollected, was of Alexandria, 
a contemporary of Christ, a Jewish Platonist. No 
individual, since the time of the Apostles, with the 
exception, perhaps, of Augustine, has exercised so 
considerable and lasting influence upon the opin- 
ions of the whole Christian world, as this learned 
and eloquent Jew. His influence operated through 
the early Christian Fathers, particularly those of 
Alexandria. To the distinction which he has thus 
attained, he had no claim from the clearness or 
consistency of his speculations, or any power of 
argument. In his mind, imagination had seized 
upon the whole domain of speculative reason. As 
an interpreter, he melted down the literal meaning 
of the Old Testament, and recast it in fanciful 
allegories. In following him in his expositions, 
which constitute far the greater part of his works, 
the reader is bewildered by a constant succession 



OP THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 333 

of metamorphoses. His unsubstantial conceptions 
on other subjects retain no permanent form. But 
he sometimes pours forth noble thoughts in a 
stream of overflowing eloquence.* His morality 
is, for the most part, correct ; and, considering his 
age and the circumstances under which he wrote, 
wonderfully pure and elevated. He seems to have 
been deeply penetrated by sentiments of true re- 
ligion, and thus separated, like the early Christians, 
from the world around him. Though verging to- 
ward asceticism in his morality, and mysticism in 
his religious feelings, he stopped short of the ex- 
travagances of both. His general conceptions of 
the Divinity are those of an enlightened Christian ; 
and his imaginations concerning the powers and 
operations of God, if untenable, are but seldom 
offensive even to a modern reader. His visionary 
speculations concerning him seem to have been 
rebuked by the severe genius of the Jewish re- 
ligion, and to float on the confines which separate 
poetry and rhetoric from philosophy. For the 
most part, he speaks of God, not only as the first 
cause, but as the immediate agent in the produc- 
tion of beings and events, without superadding 
anything in this respect to the representations of 
the Old Testament. There are many passages in 
which he introduces the Logos, and other powers 
or attributes of God, as instrumental agents of the 
Deity, that might be explained as the language of 

* [See, for example, a striking passage from Philo (De Opificio 
Munrii, c. 23. I. 15, 16), translated and illustrated by Mr. Norton in 
the Christian Examiner for September 1827, Vol. IV. p. 377.] 



334 OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 

bold personification, such as is applied to Wisdom 
in the Proverbs and the Apocrypha. But his im- 
aginations occasionally, or permanently, passed 
into opinions ; and there are passages in his writ*- 
ings which prove that he sometimes, if not always, 
conceived of the Logos and of other attributes of 
God as proper persons. Of those relating to the 
Logos I have already given examples. 

From Philo the Catholic Fathers borrowed their 
doctrine of the Logos, and the Gnostics, I may 
add, much of the material of their systems of 
iEons.* The Fathers copied his conceptions, his 



* As I shall in this section occasionally refer to the Gnostics, I will 
here give such a brief account of them as may be necessary to illus- 
trate those references. The term " Gnostics " is a general name ap- 
plied to various sects of Christians having much in common, who 
early distinguished themselves from the great body of believers. 
They existed principally during the first three centuries. Their 
most distinctive opinion was the belief that the material world was 
created by an imperfect being, far inferior to God, — the Demiurgus 
or Creator ; from whom also they supposed the Jewish dispensation 
to have proceeded. Christ was in their view the messenger of the 
Supreme God to deliver men from the reign of the Creator. 

But those opinions to which I shall have occasion to refer con- 
cerned the development of beings from the Supreme God. Respect 
ing this subject, different sects had different schemes. Concerning 
all, our information is imperfect ; but that of the Valentinians, as re- 
formed by Ptolemy, or the Ptolemaeo-Valentinian theory, as it may 
be called, is the best known, was the most prevalent, and may serve 
as a specimen of their general character. According to this theory, 
God was conceived of as having dwelt from eternity with Silence, or 
Thought, or Benevolence, (for these different names are used,) who 
appears dimly shadowed forth as the hypostatized spouse of God. 
Silence becoming pregnant through his power, the first and greatest 
emanation from God, Intellect (Nous), was produced, with Truth for 
his spouse, and from Intellect and Truth were then emitted Reason 



OF THE DOCTRINE OF THI LOGOS. 335 

distinctions, his language, and his illustrations. 
Our interest is consequently excited to learn all 
that may be known of his opinions concerning 
this subject. The inquiry will show us how im- 
perfect and changeable was his notion of an 
hypostatized Logos, and will at the same time 
open to us a prospect of speculations respect- 
ing the Divine Nature, the most foreign from 
our modes of thinking, but which have very ex- 
tensively prevailed. 

In the last section, I have given that view of 
Philo's opinions concerning an hypostatized Logos 

(the Logos), with his spouse, Life ; and Man, with his spouse, the 
Church. 

The Gnostics affected the reputation of superior wisdom and dis- 
cernment ; and in this arrangement of emanations, we may perceive, 
I think, what they regarded as a more full development of ideas 
which, in their view, were ignorantly confounded together by other 
Christians. By these, generally, no distinction was made between 
Intellect and Reason, the Nous and the Logos ; the Gnostics, on the 
contrary, separated them from each other, and regarded the latter as 
comprehended in, and emanating from, the former. We find some* 
thing analogous to their conception in Origen (Comment, in Joan* 
nem. Opp. IV. 20, 21, 22, 36, 47), who represents the Logos of God 
as comprehended in his Wisdom, and referring to Proverbs viii. 22 
(according to the Septuagint), The Lord created me, the Beginning, un- 
derstands St. John as meaning, that the Logos was in Wisdom, 
when he says, The Logos was in the Beginning. So also, I conceive, it 
was another refinement of the Gnostics to separate the emanation 
Man from the emanation Logos. The Logos was by Philo regarded 
as that image of God after which man was created, the archetypal 
man, the primal man. But the Gnostics chose to separate these two 
characters, and made a distinct emanation of the Primal Man. 

In order fully to explain what has been said, it is necessary to re- 
mark, that the female emanations are merely hypostatized attributes 
or energies of the male, and that the line of derivation from the 
33 



336 OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 

which is most commonly presented. But there is 
much more to be known. We will first consider 
how he speaks of the Logos in relation to the 
Wisdom of God. 

With the Wisdom of God, the Logos is ex- 
pressly identified by Philo.* He ascribes the same 
titles, character, and offices to both.f " God," he 
says, " separated Wisdom from his other powers 
as the head and chief." t He speaks of the uni- 
verse as formed by Divine Wisdom.§ 

But though he thus identifies the Wisdom with 
the Logos or Reason of God, yet he elsewhere 

Deity is thus to be regarded : first Intellect, then the Logos, then the 
Primal Man. 

After those which have been mentioned, follows in the system a 
series of emanations, all, I conceive, hypostatized attributes or Ideas, 
of which it is here unnecessary to give a further account. All thes 
emanations and the Deity himself were denominated ^Eons, tha 
is, " Immortals.'' They constituted the Pleroma of the Gnostics, 
by which seems to have been meant " the Perfect Manifestation of 
the Deity." The word was likewise used to denote the spiritual 
world inhabited by them, as distinguished from the material uni- 
verse. 

[For further information respecting the Gnostics, see the author's 
Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, Vols. II. and III. In 
i elation to the principal subject of this note, see particularly Vol. III. 
p. 115, et seqq.] 

* Legg. Allegorr. Lib. I. c. 19. Opp. I. 56. Quod Deterior Po- 
tion insidiari soleat. c. 31. I. 213, 214. 

t Legg. Allegorr. Lib. I. c. 14. Opp. I. 51, 52; comp. De Confu- 
sione Linguarum, c. 28. I. 427. — De Migrat. Abrahami, c. 8. I. 442 ; 
comp. De Somniis, Lib. I. c. 15. I. 633. — De Congressu, c. 21 
I. 536; comp. De Mundi Opificio, c. 6. I. 5. — De Profugis, c. 9 
I 553. 

\ Legg. Allegorr. Lib. II. c. 21. Opp. I. 82. 

§ Quis Rerum div. Haeres, c 41 I. 501 



OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 337 

represents Wisdom as the mother of the Logos; 
" his Father being God, the Father of All, and his 
Mother being Wisdom, through whom all things 
are produced."* In another place, the figure being 
borrowed from a passage on which he is comment- 
ing, he says, that "to his Logos God has given his 
Wisdom for a country where he may dwell as na- 
tive to the soil." f 

He repeatedly represents Wisdom as the Spouse 
of God, and the Mother of all things ; in the 
same manner (to notice his coincidence with the 
Gnostics) as, in the Ptolemaeo-Valentinian theory, 
Silence, Thought, or Benevolence is assigned as 
a spouse to the Divine Being. " God," he says, 
"we may rightly call the Father, and Wisdom the 
Mother, of this universe"; and the language which 
he uses in reference to this conception is as ab- 
horrent to our feelings of propriety, as that which 
Irenseus ascribes to the Valentinians.J Elsewhere 
he calls "the Virtue and Wisdom of God the 
mother of all " ; § and in another place he de- 
scribes Wisdom as the daughter of God, " al- 
ways delighting, rejoicing, and exulting in God 
her Father alone," where, immediately after, he 
identifies her with the Logos. || Again, he repre- 
sents Wisdom, "the daughter of God," as properly 

* De Profugis, c. 20. I. 562. 

t Ibid., c. 14. I. 557. 

J De Ebrietate, c. 8. I. 361 (conf. Irenaeum cont. Haereses, Lib. L 
c. 1). Quod Det. Pot. insid. soleat, c. 16. I. 201, 202. De Cheru- 
bim, c. 14. I. 148. 

§ Legg. Allegorr. Lib. II. c. 14. Opp. L 75. 

H Ibid., Lib. I. c. 19. Opp. I. 56. 



338 OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 

to be called both male and female, both father and 
mother.* 

These varying accounts of the Wisdom of God 
seem to be, in great part, rhetorical personifica- 
tions. But when we recollect that the Wisdom is 
identified with the Logos of God by Philo, as by 
the Christian Fathers, we perceive how in his mind 
figures of speech were mixed up with opinions, 
shadows with what he thought substantial beings. 
The process by which his fancies indurated into 
doctrines was left too incomplete for his scheme to 
possess proper consistency. This will still further 
appear from what follows. 

The hypostatized Logos, it is to be borne in 
mind, is an hypostatized attribute or attributes of 
God. But there are other attributes, or, as Philo 
denominates them, Powers (8vvd/JL€Ls) of God, which 
appear hypostatized in his writings as distinctly 
and permanently as the Logos. Of this I will 
give some examples. From these it will be seen 
how imperfectly Philo's theory was adjusted in his 
own mind, and how far he was from having settled 
the relation of the other Powers of God to the 
Logos. His conceptions have an analogy to the 
Valentinian system of iEons, and his hypostatizing 
these other Powers of God, if it did not give occa- 
sion to, at least countenanced, their speculations. 

The six cities of refuge, appointed by the Jewish 
Law, are, according to him, symbolical of Powers 

# De Profagis, c 9. I. 553. 



OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 339 

of God, to whom men may fly for refuge. The 
most ancient, the strongest, the best, the metropo- 
lis, from which the others are, as it were, colonies, 
is the Divine Logos, the Mind, Intellect, or Reason 
of God. The other five are the Creative, by which 
he made the universe, which Moses, according to 
Philo, has called God ; the Regal, by which he 
governs it, and which bears the name of Lord ; 
the Merciful; the Legislative which commands 
and rewards ; and the Legislative which forbids 
and punishes. " Over all these latter powers is the 
Divine Logos, the most ancient (or venerable) of 
intelligible things, the nearest to God, nothing in- 
tervening between him and that Being on whom 
he rests, Him who alone truly exists. He is the 
charioteer of the Powers of God, to whom God 
gives directions for the right guidance of the uni- 
verse." * 

After having given different allegorical explana- 
tions of the two Cherubim who guarded the gate 
of Paradise, Philo says: " I have heard a yet higher 
doctrine from my soul, accustomed to be divinely 
inspired, and to utter oracles concerning things of 
which itself is ignorant. This doctrine, if I am 
able, I will give from memory. My soul then said 
to me, that with the one God who possesses true 
being, there are two highest and principal Powers, 
Goodness and Authority ; that by Goodness all 
things are made, and by Authority the creation is 
governed ; and that a third, which connects both, 

* De Profugis, cc. 18, 19. I. 560, 561. Respecting the Legislative 
Powers, comp. De Sacrific. Abelis et Caini, c. 39. I. 189. 
33* 



340 OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 

being in the midst between them, is Reason (Lo- 
gos), for by Reason (Logos) God both rules and 
is good."* 

These two Powers of God under various names, 
sometimes called the Creative and the Regal, some- 
times Goodness and Authority, sometimes the Be- 
neficent and the Disciplinary, often appear in the 
writings of Philo. Sometimes they are spoken 
of, as in the passage last quoted, in connection 
with the Logos; more frequently they are denomi- 
nated as the two highest Powers of God, without 
any mention of the Logos. To the latter, Philo, 
as we have seen, does not apply the name " God " 
in its highest sense ; but of these two Powers he 
repeatedly says, that the proper name of the Crea- 
tive, the name given it by Moses, is " God," and 
the name of the Regal, " Lord." f 

When these Powers are spoken of by Philo as 
subjected to the Logos, if he regarded the Logos 
as a person, it is clear that he regarded them as 
persons also ; for he would not have subjected 
them, considered merely as the attributes of God, 
to the Logos, considered as a person distinct from 
God. 

But the idea of the conversion of an attribute or 

* De Cherubim, c. 9. I. 143, 144. 

t I refer to some other of the passages in which they are men 
tinned. De Sacrific. Abelis et Caini, c. 15. I. 173, 174. De Plan- 
tatione, c. 20. I. 342. De Confusione Linguarum, c. 27. I. 425. 
De Migrat. Abrahami, c. 22. I. 464. Quis Rerum div. Haeres, c. 34 
1.496. DeNominum Mutatione, cc. 3,4. 1.581-583. De Somniis, 
Lib. I. c. 26. Opp. I. 645. De Sacrificant. c. 9. II. 258. De Lega- 
tione ad Caium, c. 1. II. 546. 



OF THF DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 341 

power of God into a person had acquired no such 
fixedness and permanent form in the speculations 
of Phiio, as in the Catholic doctrine of the Logos, 
or in Ptolemy's system of JEons. Accordingly the 
two highest Powers of God, whose names are 
" God " and " Lord," may seem often to be only 
two aspects or characters under which he regarded 
the Supreme Being. After having spoken of them, 
by the names of the Creative and Regal, as sym- 
bolized by the two Cherubim overshadowing the 
Mercy-seat, and entitled them, as usual, " God " 
and " Lord," he defends his explanation by saying: 
" For God, being indeed alone, is truly a Creator, 
since he brought into being the things which were 
not, and a King by nature, for none can more 
justly rule what is made than he who made it."* 
" It is customary," he says in another place, " to 
use two appellations of the First Cause, that of 
' God' and that of 'Lord.' "f Yet there is no 
passage in his writings which seems more clearly 
to resolve them into mere attributes or characters 
of God, than one which is followed by such a de- 
scription of their personal agency as necessarily 
implies the conception of their being persons dis- 
tinct from God. It is in his book concerning 
Abraham; where he is allegorizing the appearance 
of the three angels to Abraham in the plain of 
Mamre. When the soul, he says, is circumfused 
by divine light, it discerns three appearances of one 
object, the appearance of One as properly exist- 

* De Mose, Lib. Ill c. 8. Opp II. 150. 
t Quis Reram div. Haeres, c. 6. I 4 — 



342 OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 

ing, and of two others as shadows rayed forth from 
Him, as we sometimes in the world of the senses 
see two shadows of a material object. Of these 
appearances, that in the midst is the Father of All, 
He who Is ; those on each side are his two most 
venerable Powers, the nearest to himself, the Crea- 
tive, God, and the Regal, Lord. Philo then adds, 
that God thus attended presents sometimes one 
and sometimes three images to the mental vision ; 
one, when the soul, thoroughly purified, rises above 
all idea of plurality to that unmingled form of 
being which admits of no mixture, alone, and 
wholly independent; three, before it is yet initiated 
in the greater mysteries, and cannot contemplate 
Him who Is by himself alone, but needs the aid 
of something beside, and views him through his 
works as either creating or ruling.* 

Philo would here seem to intend, that the lan- 
guage concerning the two principal Powers of 
God, when they are spoken of as distinct persons, 
is but a figurative mode of representing the opera- 
tions of the Divine Being, accommodated to the 
weakness of those who cannot comprehend him as 
he is. But as he proceeds, in his earnestness to 
prove that the account of the three angels who ap- 
peared to Abraham is to be allegorized as relating 
to God and his two attendant Powers, he presents 
an opposite view. In the narrative of the destruc- 
tion of Sodom, which immediately follows, only 

* De Abrahamo, c. 24. II. 18, 19. Comp. De Sacrifices Abelis et 
Caini, c. 15. I. 173, 174. [The latter passage is quoted in the Chris- 
tiar Examiner for May 1836, Yol. XX. pp. 231, 232.] 



OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 343 

two angels are mentioned.* This, in his opinion, 
confirms his mode of interpreting the preceding ac- 
count. He who had withdrawn himself was God, 
the two who remained were his two Powers, God 
judging it fit to bestow favors immediately from 
himself, but to commit to the ministry of his Pow- 
ers the infliction of punishment. The Beneficent 
(another name, it will be recollected, for the Crea- 
tive) and the Disciplinary (or Regal) were both 
present, the former to preserve the city of Zoar, 
which was saved, and the latter to destroy the four 
other cities of the plain.f To God thus using the 
ministry of his Powers, Philo compares human 
kings who bestow favors in person, but punish by 
the ministry of others. J 

By this and by other similar representations, 
Philo shows that he did often, if not uniformly, 
image to himself the Powers of God as agents 
distinct from God. But how fluctuating were his 
conceptions may appear, not only from the seem- 
ing discrepancy between the former and the latter 
part of the passage I have quoted, but from the 
absence of all mention of the Logos in this discus- 
sion concerning what he here and elsewhere calls 
the two highest Powers of God. 

When, however, the light of his philosophy 
shone full around him, Philo discerned not merely 
those hypostatized Powers of God that have been 
mentioned, but many others, far exceeding in num* 

* Genesis xix. 1, seqq. t Comp. Genesis xiv. 2, 3 

X De Abrahamo, c. 28. II. 21, 22. 



344 OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 

bei the Gnostic iEons. To state a fact for which, 
strange as it is, what precedes may afford some 
preparation, Philo, as a Platonist, hypostatized, 
generally, the Powers of God. In commenting 
upon the history of the tower of Babel, he inquires 
whom God addressed, when he said, Come, let us 
go down, and there confuse their language. u He 
appears," he says, " to be addressing some as fel- 
low-workers." But God is the only Maker and 
Father and Lord of the Universe. How, then, 
are the words to be explained ? God, he answers, 
being one, is surrounded by innumerable Powers, 
all employed for the service and benefit of the 
creation. On these Powers the angels are attend- 
ant ministers, and the whole army of each is under 
the direction of God. " It is proper, then, that the 
King should hold converse with his Powers, and 
use their ministry in such acts as it is not fitting 
that God should effect alone." " Perceiving what 
was suitable for himself and his creatures, he has 
left some things to be wrought out by his subject 
Powers ; not granting them, however, independent 
authority to complete anything by their own skill, 
lest some error should be introduced into the works 
of creation." * 

After so clear an expression on the part of Philo 
of his conception of the Powers of God as per- 
sonal agents distinct from God, it is unnecessary 
either to proceed with the passage which I have 
quoted, in which this conception is further devel- 

• De Ccmfusione Linguarura, cc. 33, 34. I. 430-433. 



OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 345 

oped, or to p;oduce at length others to the same 
effect* 

We pass to other conceptions of Philo, concep- 
tions which present new analogies to the Valen- 
tinian system of ./Eons. As he who is about to 
build a city forms a plan of it in his own mind, so 
God, according to Philo, before the work of crea- 
tion, formed in his own Logos, or mind, a plan of 
the Universe. This was the Intelligible World, 
the world of Platonic Ideas, the archetypal world, 
the pattern of the visible. So far there is nothing 
particularly unintelligible. But Philo immediately 
converts the world of Ideas into the Divine Logos 
itself ; and the confusion becomes at first view in- 
extricable. 

After comparing the archetypal world to the 
plan which an architect forms of a city that he is 
about to build, and representing its seat to be the 
Divine Logos (or Intellect), Philo presents the 
other apparently very different conception just 
mentioned. " To speak plainly," he says, " the 
intelligible world [the world of Ideas] is nothing 
else than the Logos of the Creator, as the intelligi- 
ble city is only the process of thought in the archi- 
tect, considering how to form a sensible city by 
means of an intelligible. This is not my doctrine, 

* The following passages may be consulted upon this subject. De 
Mundi Opificio, c. 24. 1.16,17. De Plantatione, c. 12. 1.336,337. 
De Confusione Linguarum, c. 27. I. 425. De Migrat. Abrahami, 
c. 32. I. 464. De Profugis, c. 13. I. 556. De Legat. ad Caium, 
c. 1. II. 546. 



346 OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 

but that of Moses. For in describing the produc- 
tion of man, he declares expressly, that he was 
formed after the Image of God [that is, after the 
Logos, whom Philo considers as the Image of 
God]. But if a part be an image of that Image 
[the Logos], it is clear that all of the same kind, 
the whole sensible world, which is greater than 
man, is a copy of the Divine Image. And it is 
manifest that the archetypal seal, which we say 
was the intelligible world, must be the archetypal 
exemplar, the Idea of Ideas, the Logos of God." * 

" God," says Philo in another place, " gave form 
to the formless substance of all things [primitive 
matter], he stamped a character upon what bore 
no character, he fashioned what was without quali- 
ties, and, bringing the world to perfection, put upon 
it his seal, his Image, his Idea, his own Logos." f 

Thus, according to one conception of Philo, the 
Logos was the hypostatized Intellect of God, the 
former and the seat of the archetypal world; ac- 
cording to another, he was himself the archetypal 
world. The solution of this problem is to be found 
in the fact, that Philo regarded the hypostatized 
Powers (or attributes) of God as themselves con- 
stituting the Ideas of the archetypal world, and, 
viewed in this aspect, as all contained in and em- 
braced under the Logos, the most generic of Ideas. 

He says, that, when Moses desired to see the 

* De Mundi Opificio, c. 6. I. 5. 

t De Somiriis, Lib. II. c. 6. Opp. I. 665. On this subject see 
also Legg. Allegorr. Lib. III. c. 31. Opp. I. 106. De Profugis, c. 2. 
I. 547, 548. 



OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 347 

glory of God, that is, the Powers encompassing 
God, " God answered him, The Powers which you 
desire to see are altogether invisible and intelligible 
[that is, objects of intellect alone], I myself being 
invisible and intelligible. I call them intelligible, 
not as if they had as yet been comprehended by 
intellect, but because, if it be possible they should 
be comprehended, it cannot be by sense 5 but by 
intellect in its highest state of purity. But though 
their essence is thus incomprehensible, they give 
forth to view impressions and images of their en- 
ergy. For as the seals used by men stamp count- 
less impressions upon wax or any similar material, 
without losing anything of their substance, so it is 
to be understood that the Powers around me give 
qualities to things without quality, and forms to 
things without form, their eternal nature remain- 
ing unchanged and without loss. Some among 
men not improperly call them Ideas. They confer 
upon each being its peculiar properties.* To the 
disorderly, the boundless, the undefined, the form- 
less, [that is, to primitive matter,] they give order 
and bounds and limits and form, changing alto 
gether the worse into the better." f 

" It was not fit," according to Philo, " that God 
himself should mould the boundless and chaotic 
mass of matter; but by means of his incorporeal 

* The original of this and the preceding sentence does not admit 
of a literal translation. It is as follows : ' * Ovojia&vo-i 6° avras ovk 

WJTO (TK07TOV TLV€S TCQV Trap VfUU l$€CLS, €7T€ldr) CKCKTTOV T&V OVT<OP 
1$IQT010V(TI. 

1 De Monarchic, Lib. I. e. 6. Opp. II. 218, 219. 
34 



348 OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 

Powers, whose proper name is Ideas, he gave to 
every kind of thing the form suitable to it."* 

This doctrine concerning the Powers of God, as 
the archetypal Ideas of all created things, was so 
connected in the imagination of Philo, when he 
Wrote this passage, with his belief in God as the 
creator of all things, that he represents it as an 
impiety scarcely less than atheism to deny it. 

The imaginations of Philo concerning the Pow- 
ers of God, as Ideas of the archetypal world, were 
not peculiar to himself. They appear in the spec- 
ulations of others among the later disciples of 
Plato, and seem to have extensively prevailed. 

" Some of the Platonists and Pythagoreans," 
says Cudworth, " declaring the second hypostasis 
of their Trinity [Intellect, Nous, answering to the 
Logos of Philo] to be the archetypal world, or, as 
Philo calls it, the world that is compounded and 
made tip of Ideas, and containeth in it all those 
kinds of things intelligibly that are in this lower 
world sensibly ; and further concluding, that all 
these several Ideas of this archetypal world are 
really so many distinct substances, animals and 
gods, have therefore made that second hypostasis 
not to be one God, but a congeries and heap of 
Gods."f These Ideas were conceived of as ex- 
isting in God, as Ideas of God. They are, in the 
language of Philo, the Powers of God, causing all 
things in the created universe to be what they are. 

# De Sacrificantibus, c. 13. II. 261. 

t Intellectual System, p. 553. [Ch IV. § 36. Vol. I p. 729, 
Andover ed ] 



OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 349 

They are, as Cudworth says, " animals and gods," 
that is, in other terms, divine persons. For further 
illustration of this subject, I refer to the chapter I 
have quoted, the fourth of the u Intellectual Sys- 
tem," without, however, intending to imply any 
general assent to the remarks and inferences of 
Cudworth. 

Having long since passed the bounds of all 
sober speculation, we may, perhaps, be prepared 
for the strange chaos of opinions which has at last 
opened upon us, — 

" Congestaque eodem 
Non bene junctarum discordia semina rerum." 

The description of the poet may be still further 
applied to these ancient doctrines : — 

" Lucis egens a£r : nulli sua forma raanebat : 
Obstabatque aliis aliud."* 

The imagination of Philo with which we have 
at present most concern, is that by which he con- 
verted the attributes of God into proper persons. 
The same conception, if conception it may be 
called, the same formless aggregate of antagoniz- 
ing ideas, is one which has made its apparition in 
various systems. It appears, as we have seen, in 
the theories of the later Platonists. It was, as I 
am now about to show, the basis of the doctrine 
of the Logos, as held by the Fathers of the first 
four centuries. It is the key to the Gnostic sys« 

* [Ovid. Metam. I. 8, 17.1 



350 OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 

tem of iEons, the derivative ^Eons being attri- 
butes and Ideas hypostatized. It is the essentia 
principle of the speculations of the Jewish Cab- 
alists concerning the Divinity ; and through con- 
nections, which as yet have not been traced, it 
presents itself broadly developed in the theology 
of the Bramins. 

Of the obscure system of the Gnostic ^Eons, it 
would be out of place here to enter into any fur- 
ther explanation than has been incidentally given. 
Between the speculations of the Cabalists and 
those of Philo and the later Platonists there is 
much coincidence, particularly as regards the topic 
before us. " The Cabalists," says Basnage, "re- 
garding God as an infinite, incomprehensible es- 
sence, between which and created things there can 
be no immediate communication, have imagined 
that he has made himself known, and has operated, 
by his perfections which have emanated from him." 
" It is their style," he says, " to speak of the per- 
fections of God as of persons different from his 
essence." * The first and greatest of the emana- 
tions from him they denominate " Adam Kadmon." 
It is in him that the Powers of God are mani- 
fested ; he is the source of all subsequent existence. 
He corresponds to the Logos of Philo and the 
Christian Fathers, and to the Nous or Intellect of 
the later Platonists and Gnostics. He was the 
prototype of man, as the Logos is represented by 
Philo. Through him were developed ten attri- 

* Histoire des Juifs, Li v. III. c. 14. 



OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 351 

buies of the Divinity, denominated " Sephiroths " 
or il Splendors," each having its appropriate name. 
These emanations are the hypostatized Powers of 
God, through which he is manifested. 

In the chapter from which I have quoted, Bas- 
nage is disposed to ~3gard the whole system of the 
Cabalists as an allegory, and their language con- 
cerning the personal character of the Sephiroths as 
figurative. But he says : u They push their alle- 
gories so far that it is difficult to follow them ; 
they so frequently speak of these perfections as of 
so many different persons, that the greatest atten- 
tion is necessary, not to be deceived." If, how- 
ever, the Cabalists had not conceived of these 
perfections as proper persons, they would not have 
represented them as emanating. Basnage, indeed, 
seems to have abandoned this view of their sys- 
tem in a subsequent volume ; * in which he sup- 
poses the Cabalists to have viewed them as era- 
anant condensations of that divine light, which, 
according to them, was the substance of God, 
w having a kind of existence separate from him, 
though always near him." In the chapter from 
which I have last quoted, he states that they be- 
lieved in four modes of creation, or the production 
of being. The first of these was emanation from 
the substance of God. The Sephiroths were placed 
by them in the World of Emanations, correspond- 
ing to the Pleroma of the Gnostics. The Cab- 
alists held that there was but one substance in 



# Liv. IV. c. 8. 
34* 



352 OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 

the universe, that of God; a fundamental doctrine 
in the theology of the Hindoos. Hence they would 
ascribe real personality to the Sephiroths, equally 
as to other beings composed of this one substance. 
It is the certainty that the Sephiroths were attri- 
butes of God, and the actual impossibility of an 
attribute being a person, that has led to the inef- 
fectual attempts to allegorize their system. A 
similar cause has operated in the same way in 
regard to other systems of a like kind, especially 
that of the Gnostics. But the truth is, that in all 
these systems the attributes of God were regarded 
both as attributes and as persons, or, to express 
the imagination by a single term, as hypostatized 
attributes. 

In respect to the mythology of the Hindoos, 
every one who has given attention to the subject 
is aware, that one of its most distinguishing fea- 
tures is the hypostatizing of the attributes and 
manifestations of the Deity. One Supreme Being 
is recognized, but no worship is paid him. He 
manifests himself, it is supposed, under three 
hypostases, as the Creator, Brahma ; the Pre- 
server, Vishnu ; and the Destroyer, or Changer 
of Forms, Siva ; with their accompanying Ener- 
gies, likewise hypostatized as females. Either 
Siva or Vishnu, alone, or both in connection, to 
the exclusion of Brahma, are at the present day 
worshipped as Supreme. To all three, and to the 
goddesses who are associated with them, are as- 
cribed personal characters and personal actions, 
and such too as are most abhorrent to our con 
ceptions of the Divinity. 



OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 353 

But these are not the only divine attributes 
hypostatized by the Hindoos. " The Ved having, 
in the first instance, personified all the attributes 
and powers of the Deity, and also the celestial 
bodies and natural elements, does, in conformity 
to the idea of personification, treat of them in the 
subsequent passages as if they were real beings, 
ascribing to them birth, animation, senses, and 
accidents, as well. as liability to annihilation."* 

The author from whom I have made the last 
extract, one of the most enlightened men whom 
India or the world has produced, in his labors to 
reclaim his countrymen from idolatry, has shown 
that the Vedas teach the existence and worship of 
him who is alone God. This, however, does not 
prove that the writers might not conceive of his 
attributes as proper persons ; for Philo, and the 
Cabalists, and the Gnostics, all affirmed the unity 
of God. The Hindoo theists represent all finite 
spirits as portions of God's substance, as the flames 
of separate candles are each a portion of elemental 
fire ; or as the numberless reflections of the sun's 
rays are only modifications of his light. 

In endeavoring to apprehend the process of 
thought that has thus led to the hypostatizing 
of the powers and attributes of the Divinity, it 
may perhaps assist us if we recollect the manner 
in which the human mind has been decomposed, 
and its faculties, affections, and relations personi- 

* Rammohun Roy, Second Defence of the Monotheistical Sysk 
tern of the Yeds, p. 17, note 



3*4 OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 

fied. The qualities, acts, and even sufferings, ot 
real persons are familiarly ascribed to them. We 
speak of being governed by Reason, and of Rea- 
son as bewildered ; Hope cheers and leads us on ; 
Imagination pictures for us fairer scenes than re- 
ality presents ; the voice of Duty is to be obeyed 
without hesitation ; and Conscience is the vicege- 
rent of God within us. All such expressions we 
recognize at once as merely figurative ; because 
we are too well acquainted with the subject to 
which they relate to understand them otherwise. 
We may regard reason as a faculty of the mind, 
and, at the same time, image reason to ourselves as 
a person, without difficulty or absurdity. But in 
relation to subjects that present any considerable 
degree of obscurity, as, for instance, the mind of 
God, nothing is more common than for figurative 
language to harden, if I may so speak, into literal. 
iVn imagination is easily transformed into a sup- 
posed apprehension. There is a tendency in every 
idea that dwells long in the mind to assume a char- 
acter of reality.* To the admission of metaphors 
as literal truths is to be ascribed a great part of 
the errors and follies, and consequently of the vices, 
of men. These errors, too, it is often difficult to 
expel ; for when the imaginary conception that 

* [See before, pp. 313, 334, 338. — " Though vivid conception is 
not, as it has been said to be, belief, yet we readily pass from it to the 
opinion, that what presents itself to our apprehension in such well- 
defined lineaments and permanent colors must have a real exist- 
ence." (Article by Mr. Norton on the Authorship of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, 'n the Christian Examiner for January 1828, Vol. V 
p. 38.)] 



OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 355 

has intruded itself out of place is hardly pressed, 
it may assume for the moment its proper charac- 
ter, and retreat into its own sphere, ready to return 
and reassume its reign whenever the conflict i3 
over. 

We come now to the purpose for which I have 
entered into the preceding explanations. We havo 
seen how extensively the doctrine has prevailed of 
hypostatized attributes of God. This doctrine is 
in itself so unintelligible, and is so foreign from 
the philosophy of the present day, that it is not 
strange that the fact of its prevalence, and even 
of its existence, has been but imperfectly appre- 
hended ; and that modern inquirers, when they 
perceived that some object of thought was re- 
garded as an attribute of God, have supposed that 
it could not also be regarded as a proper person. 
But there is no doubt that these conceptions, 
however incongruous, have been brought together. 
It was in this mode of apprehending the Divine 
Being that the doctrine of the Trinity had its ori- 
gin. The Logos of the first four centuries was, in 
the view of the Fathers, both an attribute or attri- 
butes of God, and a proper person. Their philos- 
ophy was, in general, that of the later Platonists, 
and they transferred from it into Christianity this 
mode of conception. 

In treating of this fact, so strange, and one 
which will be so new to many readers, I will first 
quote a passage from Origen, the coincidence of 
which with the conceptions of Philo and the later 



356 OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 

Platonists is apparent. In commenting on the 
introduction of St. John's Gospel, he makes, as I 
have before said,* a distinction between the Wis- 
dom and the Logos of God, and supposes his 
Logos to be comprehended in his Wisdom. The 
Son, or Christ, he represents as both the Logos 
and Wisdom of God. Of the Wisdom of God he 
thus speaks :f " Nor must we omit that Christ [or 
Jesus, for Origen uses the names indiscriminately] 
is properly the Wisdom of God ; and is, therefore, 
so denominated. For the Wisdom of the God 
and Father of All has not its being in bare con- 
ceptions, analogous to the conceptions in human 
minds. But if any one be capable of forming an 
idea of an incorporeal being of diverse forms of 
thought, which comprehend the logoi [the archetypal 
forms] of all things, a being indued with life, and 
having, as it were, a soul, he will know that the 
Wisdom of God, who is above every creature, pro- 
nounced rightly concerning herself, The Lord cre- 
ated me, the beginning, his ivay to his works." J 

In this passage, the proper wisdom of God is 
hypostatized, and described as the Logos of Philo, 
or the Nous (Intellect) of the later Platonists. A 
little after, there is the following account of the 
Logos and othar Powers of God as hypostatized, 
corresponding equally v*ith the conceptions of Philo 
and the Platonists. Having declared the Logos to 
be comprehended in the Wisdom of God, he goes 

* See before, p. 335, note. t Opp. IV. 39, 40. 

% Prov. viii. 22, according to some copy of the Septuagint, or othsi 
Greek translation, used by Origen. 



OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 357 

on to teach, that it has still "a proper distinct being 
of its own, so as to possess life in itself." In order 
to comprehend this, he says: "We must speak 
not only of the Power, but of the Powers of God. 
Thus says the Lord of the Poivers* is an expression 
which often occurs, in which by ' Powers ' is meant 
certain living beings, rational and divine, the high- 
est and best of whom is Christ, who is called not 
merely the Wisdom, but the Power of God. There 
being, then, many Powers of God, each of whom 
has his distinct being, and all of whom the Saviour 
excels, Christ is to be regarded as the Logos [the 
Supreme Reason over all the other rational Pow- 
ers], having his personal existence in the Begin- 
ning, that is, in Wisdom ; differing from that Rea- 
son which exists in us, and has no distinct being 
out of us." f 

Obscure as these passages may be* to one not 
familiar with the conceptions and language of the 
philosophy to which they belong, they are still 
sufficiently clear as to the main point which they 
have been brought to establish. It is a fact, how- 
ever, which has not been, under any of its aspects, 
adverted to by a great majority of writers who 
have treated of the doctrine of the Trinity. Of the 
notices relating to it, there is one by Clarke, in his 
Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity,^ which it may 
be worth while to bring forward, before adducing 

# Kvptos T(ov dvvdficcov, LXX. The rendering of the Common 
Version is " Lord of Hosts." 
t Opp. IV. 47. 
t Part II { 18, Notes, 3d. ed. 



358 OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 

further quotations from the Fathers. I present it 
in a somewhat abridged form. 

" Among the writers," he says, " before the time 
of the Council of Nice, Theophilus, Tatian, and 
Athenagoras seem to have been of that opinion, 
that the Word (the Logos) was the internal Rea- 
son or Wisdom of the Father ; and yet, at the 
same time, they speak as if they supposed that 
Word to be produced or generated into a real 
Person ; which is wholly unintelligible, and seems 
to be a mixture of two opinions : the one, of the 
generality of Christians, who believed the Word to 
be a real Person ; the other, of the Jews and Jew- 
ish Christians, who personated the internal Wis- 
dom of God, or spake of it figuratively (according 
to the genius of their language) as of a person. 

"Irenaeus and Clemens Alexandrinus speak some- 
times with £ome ambiguity, but, upon the whole, 
plainly enough understand the Word or Son of 
God to be a real person. 

" The other writers before the Council of Nice 
do generally speak of him clearly and distinctly as 
of a real person. 

" About the time of the Council of Nice, they 
spake with more uncertainty ; sometimes arguing 
that the Father, considered without the Son, would 
be without Reason and without Wisdom ; which 
is directly supposing the Son to be nothing but an 
attribute of the Father; and yet at other times 
expressly maintaining, that he was truly and per- 
fectly a Son. But the greater part agreed in this 
latter notion, that he was a real person." 



OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 359 

In t is passage there are two errors. The first 
is the implication that the conception of the Logos 
as an attribute was more prevalent about the time 
of the Council of Nice than it had been before. 
On the contrary, the fundamental idea of the Lo- 
gos was as of an attribute of God. His attribute 
it was conceived to be, equally as reason is an 
attribute of man. The other error is in the sup- 
position that the Fathers who spoke of the Logos 
as a person could not also have imagined him to 
be an attribute. The Fathers of the first four cen- 
turies, generally, believed the Logos (if we may so 
use the word believe) to be both an attribute and a 
person. I will quote a few examples of their lan- 
guage. 

Justin Martyr, speaking of his u second god," 
whom I have formerly mentioned,* declares that 
" this god, produced from the Father of All, is the 
reason (logos) and wisdom and power of him who 
produced him," and immediately identifies him with 
"Wisdom as personified in the Proverbs.f Justin 
was one of the first, perhaps the first, Christian 
writer who gave a form to the Catholic doctrine 
of the Logos. His contemporary, Athenagoras, 
says that " the Son is the intellect and the reason 
(logos) of the Father." " He is the first produc- 
tion of the Father, not with reference to any com- 
mencement of existence; for from the beginning, 
God, being the eternal mind, always had reason 
(logos) in himself, as being eternally rational ; but 



* [See befo -e, pp. 204, 205.] 

t Dial, cum Tryph. p. 267. [al. c. 61. p. 284, C] 



360 OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS, 

with reference to his going forth [his emanation 
from God], to be the Idea [the formative princi- 
ple] and the energy of the formless nature of ma- 
terial things."* Theophilus of Antioch, another 
contemporary, calls the Logos "the spirit, the wis- 
dom, and the power of the Most High ; the 

wisdom of God which was in him before the world 
was, and his holy reason (logos) which is always 
with him." f The Logos, he teaches, " existed al- 
ways internally in the mind of God. Before any- 
thing was created, it was his counsellor, being his 
intellect and thought; but when God was about 
to form what he had determined on, he generated 
it externally, as the First-born of the whole crea- 
tion, not making himself void of reason (logos)) 
but generating reason, and always holding con- 
verse with his reason." J 

On this subject Irenaeus has fallen, if it be 
possible, into greater confusion and contradictions 
than the other writers of his age. He often speaks 
of the Logos or Son as of a person distinct from 
God, and describes him as a minister of God's 
will. He himself says, that St. John teaches his 
" effectual " § generation, which, according to his 
use of this language elsewhere, must mean his 
production from the substance of God as in all 
respects a proper person. But in his zeal against 

* Legatio pro Christianis, § 10. p. 287, edit. Paris, 1742. 
t Ad Autolycum, Lib. II. $ 10. p. 355, edit. Paris, 1742. 
\ Ibid., § 22. p. 365. 

$ Efficabilem, i. e. efficacem. Lib. in. c. 11. § 8; comp. Lib. H 
c. 17. $ 2. 



OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 361 

the Gnostic doctrine of emanation, he not only 
uses such language as shows that he regarded the 
Logos as an attribute, but such as is inconsistent 
with the imagination of his being anything but an 
attribute. Referring to the first of the Gnostic 
emanations, Intellect or Mind, and to the second, 
Logos, Reason, he says : " The Father of All is 
not a composite being, something else beside 
Mind ; but Mind is the Father, and the Father 
is Mind." Having thus identified Mind or Intel- 
lect with the Father, he immediately proceeds to 
identify Intellect with Reason or the Logos.* In 
another passage, he describes God as being " all 
Mind and all Logos." w His thought," he says, "is 
his Logos, and his Logos his Mind, and the all- 
embracing Mind is the Father himself."! Speak- 
ing a little before of the Gnostic system as con- 
sisting in transferring to God conceptions of differ- 
ent affections and faculties of the human mind, he 
considers it as irreverent to regard the Divinity as 
thus affected and divided, " God being all mind, 
all reason (ratio, i. e. Logos), one operating spirit, 
all light, ever the same without change." J 

From many passages which might be quoted it 
is my purpose only to produce a few, in order 
clearly to illustrate the conceptions of the Fathers 
upon this subject. Clement of Alexandria says: 
" The Logos of the Father of All is the wisdom 
and goodness of God made most clearly manifest, 
his almighty and truly divine power, his sovereign 

* Lib. H. c. 17. § 7. t Lib. II. c. 28. § 5. 

t Lib. II. c. 28. § 4. See further on this subject, Lib. II. c. 13. 



362 OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 

will."* His meaning is that the Logos denotes 
the attributes of God as manifested in the creation 
and government of the universe ; but there is no 
question that he also considered the Logos as a 
person. By Tertullian, Christ is described as "the 
power of God and the spirit of God, the dis 
course (sermo), and wisdom, and reason, and Sor 
of God." f I have quoted passages from Origen 
in which he represents both the Wisdom of God, 
and the Logos or Reason of God, as living beings. 
In the following, the Logos fades away into a dim 
Platonic Idea. " We are reproached by Celsus," 
he says, "for avoiding evil deeds, and reverencing 
and honoring Virtue as produced by God, and 

being the Son of God If we speak of a 

second god, let it be understood that we mean 
nothing else than that Virtue which comprehends 
all virtues [i. e. the most generic Idea of virtue] 
and that Reason (Logos) which comprehends the 
reasons of all things properly natural, and tending 
to the good of the universe." J The Son, he ex- 
pressly teaches elsewhere, is the Wisdom of God 
existing substantially^ 

Petavius, in one of the chapters of his " Theologi- 
ca Dogmata," || discusses the question, "Whether 
the Son is the very wisdom by which the Father 
is wise," — An ipsa sapientia qua Pater sapiens est 



* Stromat. V. § 1. pp. 646, 647. t Apologet. § 23. 

\ Contra Celsum, Lib. V. § 39. Opp. I. 608. 
§ In his Commentary on John before quoted, and in his work D« 
l'rincipiis, Lib. I. c. 2. 

11 De Trinitate, Lib VI. c. 9. 



OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 30d 

nit Filius. After showing that this was the com- 
mon doctrine of the Fathers (plerique sic existi- 
masse videntur), he produces in favor of the oppo- 
site opinion, which he himself maintains, only the 
vacillating authority of Augustine, who retracted 
on this subject the common opinion, which he had 
once asserted. The great argument of Athanasius 
and his followers for the eternity of the Logos 
was, that God, being always rational, always had 
Reason (the Logos) within him. " There is no 
other wisdom," according to Athanasius, " in the 
Father than the Lord (Christ)."* " The Son," he 
says, "is the very wisdom, the very reason, the 
very power of the Father." f He was described 
by others as the power, the omnipotence, and the 
will of the Father. It is unnecessary in this con- 
nection to quote the passages at length, £ or to ad- 

* Epistola Encyclica contra Arianos, § 14. Opp. I. 284, edit. Ben- 
edict. 

t Contra Gentes, § 46. Opp. I. 46. 

% Many passages to this effect may be found in the first volume of 
the work of Petavius, Lib. V. c. 8. Respecting this whole topic, the 
reader who wishes to pursue the inquiry may consult Petavius, as 
already referred to, and likewise De Trinitate, Lib. I. cc. 3, 4, 5 ; and 
Priestley's History of Early Opinions, Vol. II. pp. 44-144. There 
are considerable errors in Priestley, but none such as essentially affect 
his argument, or are likely, with one exception, much to embarrass 
or mislead his reader. One is, that Philo regarded the personality of 
the Logos as occasional only, a notion for which there is no founda- 
tion in his works. But the particular error to which I have referred 
is the implication in several passages, that the Logos conceived of as 
a person was not conceived of as being at the same time an attri- 
bute, — that he was only regarded as having been first an attribute. 
and then a person. 

It was indeed, as has been shown by Priestley and others, the ex- 
35* 



364 OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 

duce additional proof of the general fact main- 
tained. I will only further mention one concep- 
tion, more strange than those already noticed. 
"Perhaps," says Origen, "if we may venture to 
speculate still further, we may conceive of the 
Only Son as the soul of God. For as the soul 
placed within the body moves every part, and ex- 
cites all its operations, so the Only Son of God, 
who is his reason (Verbum, i. e. -4oyo9), and wis- 
dom, being placed within him, extends to and 
reaches every power of God."* The extravagance 
of this imagination becomes perhaps more striking, 
when we compare it with the strong language of 
Origen concerning the inferiority of the Son to the 
Father. 

In all the systems before mentioned, in which 
attributes of God have been hypostatized, with the 

press doctrine of several of the Fathers, that the Logos, existing 
primarily in God, was afterwards " generated," and put forth as the 
Son, by the voluntary act of the Father, to be his agent in the crea- 
tion of the world. The doctrine is thus expressed, for instance, by 
Prudentius : — 

" Ex ore quamlibet Patris 

Sis ortus, et Verbo editus, 

Tamen paterno in pectore 

Sophia callebas prius." 

[Cathemerin. XL 17.] 

The Fathers who held this doctrine are commonly supposed not to 
have ascribed personality to the Logos before his generation and 
emanation. But they nowhere, I think, expressly affirm that he was 
then not a person , and still less is it to be thought, that, after hii 
generation, they ceased to regard him as an attribute. 
* De Principiis Lib. II. c. 10. $ 5. Opp. I. 96. 



OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOtJOS. 365 

exception of the later form of Trinitarian Ortho- 
doxy, these attributes, when conceived of as per- 
sons, have been regarded as far inferior to God. 
The nature, indeed, and operations of the attribute 
belong and are to be referred immediately to God. 
It is indifferent whether we say that the universe 
was created by the disposing power of the Supreme 
Being, or created by the Supreme Being, if we use 
the former term merely to denote an attribute. But 
when a personal character is superadded to this at- 
tribute, then the new being becomes, as a person, 
inferior to the Supreme. He is not God, but a god 
only. Still, in regard to the Christian Logos, his 
substance being conceived of as derived from the 
substance of the Deity, as generated out of it, — a 
prolation or emanation from it, like a stream from a 
fountain, a branch from a tree, or rays of light from 
the sun, — he was under this aspect, as well as under 
the relation of an attribute, to a certain extent iden- 
tified with God * by the earlier Fathers. To a cer- 
tain extent only, for, in reference to the totality of 

* Thus it becomes not unfrequently difficult to determine, in pas- 
sages in which the name Oeoy, or Dens, is applied by the earlier Fa- 
thers to the Logos, or Son, or Christ, whether we are to consider it 
as an appellative, or as to be referred through the Logos to the Su- 
preme Being, with whom the Logos is regarded as partially identified. 
I am aware that the phrase " partially identified " is an absurdity ia 
terms ; but the imagination of which I speak was absurd, and such 
language alone can convey a just conception of it. 

Hence the translation of the passages referred to becomes a matter 
of investigation and judgment, and often, from the indistinct and 
varying signification of the terms in question, and our different use 
of the name " God," it is scarcely possible to explain their sense in 
English bj a mere translation. [See before, p. 120, note.] 



366 OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 

each, he was regarded by them as a being far inferior 
to God.* The same inferiority was ascribed by the 
Gnostics to the derivative iEons ; by the later Pla- 
tonists, to the second person in their Trinity, Nous, 
or Intellect, considered in reference to the first ; 
by the Cabalists, to their Sephiroths ; and by the 
Hindoos, to all their hypostatized attributes. As 
respects the Logos, the imagination of a person pre- 
dominating over that of an attribute, and this per- 
son being considered as far inferior to God, the way 
was opened for the Arian doctrine, which, dropping 
the idea of an attribute, and rejecting the belief 
that the Logos was an emanation from the sub- 
stance of the Divinity, regarded him only as a per- 
son, and reduced him to the rank of created beings. 
But this produced a reaction on the part of their 
Catholic opponents, who in consequence raised the 

* [Thus Tertullian says : " The Father is the whole substance; the 
Son, a derivation from the whole, and a portion of it; as he himself 
declares, For the Father is greater than I." — " Pater tota substantia 
est ; Filius vero derivatio totius et portio ; sicut ipse profitetur, Quia 
Pater major me est." (Advers. Praxeam, c. 9 ; comp. c. 26, and Ape- 
loget. c. 21.) Professor Stuart translates the first part of the sentence 
here quoted as follows : " The Father is the whole substance ; the 
Son, the derivation and apportionment of the whole" ! (Biblical Reposi- 
tory for April 1835, p. 351, note.) 

So Lactantius, speaking of the Father and the Son, to whom he 
attributes " one mind, one spirit, one substance," goes on to remark. 
" But the one [the Father] is, as it were, an exuberant fountain ; the 
other, as a stream flowing from it ; the one is like the sun ; the other, 
like a ray proceeding from the sun ; and since he is faithful to the 
Supreme Father and dear to him, he is not separated from him, just 
as the stream is not separated from the fountain, nor the ray from the 
sun." (Institut. Lib. IV. c. 29.) 

"The Sun," says Origen, u is in no respect to be compared with 
ihe Father." (Comm. in Joan., Tom. xiii. c. 25. Opp. IV. 235.)] 



OF THE DOCTRINE OP THE LOGOS. 367 

Logos or Son to what they called an equality with 
God, or the Father, though they considered it as a 
derived and subordinate equality. 

The illustrations which I have given are far 
from presenting a full view of the confusion and 
incoherence of thought that prevailed among the 
Catholic Fathers. But they are, perhaps, sufficient 
to establish the fact, that the Logos was regarded 
by the Fathers both as an attribute of God and a 
distinct person ; corresponding to a mode of con- 
ception, or rather an imagination, that has spread 
widely through different systems of theology; — an 
imagination so incongruous, that those who have 
treated of the history of opinions seem often to 
have recoiled from the notice of it, or shrunk from 
acknowledging its existence. The words in which 
it is expressed, conveying in fact no meaning, are 
apt to pass over the mind of a modern reader 
without leaving the impression that what was 
considered as a very important meaning was once 
attached to them. The different aspect which it 
gives to the theological doctrine of the Trinity, 
from what that doctrine has assumed in modern 
times, may alone perhaps sufficiently account for 
the absence of all mention of it in the writings 
of most of those who have adverted to the opin- 
ions of the Christian Fathers respecting the Logos. 
That the conception of the same being as an at- 
tribute and a person was an object of what may 
strictly be called belief, is not to be maintained; 
for we cannot, properly speaking, believe a mani- 



368 OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 

fest contradiction. Bat the case was the same 
with this as with many other doctrines that have 
been zealously maintained. One part of it was 
believed at one time, and another at another. It 
was assented to successively, not simultaneously. 
When, of the two contrary propositions embraced 
in the conception, one rose upon the mind, the other 
set. In speaking of such doctrines as being be- 
lieved, we intend, at most, what may be called an 
alternating belief, ever vibrating between two oppo- 
site opinions, and attaching itself, as it is repelled 
or attracted, first to the one and then to the other. 

We will now pass to another conception con- 
cerning the Logos. In the creation of the uni- 
verse, God was conceived of as having first mani- 
fested himself. But it was by his Disposing Power, 
his Logos, that the universe was created. By the 
same Power, as his vicegerent, God was regarded 
as governing all things. It was, then, in and by 
his Logos, that God was manifested. Hence the 
Logos, considered as a person, the agent in the 
creation and government of the universe, came 
to be regarded as an hypostatized manifestation of 
God. Thus, also, the Gnostics conceived of their 
iEons as hypostatized manifestations of God. I 
am aware that I use a term without meaning ; but 
there is no other which will better convey a notion 
of the unformed imaginations that once prevailed 
upon this subject.* 

* See the ingenious and agreeable work of Souverain, Le Platonisme 
divoile, in which, however, the view of the author is too limited. 



OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 369 

u The Logos," says Clement of Alexandria, " is 
the face of God, by which he is illustrated and 
made known."* The Gnostics, with the same 
meaning, called their ^Son, " Intellect," the face 
of God.f To the same conception of the Logos, 
as the manifestation of God, must be referred 
those numerous passages in which he is spoken 
of as the " name of God," the " image of God," 
the " irradiation " (diravyao-jjua) of God, the " vis- 
ion " (opaais) of God, the " visible god," in contra- 
distinction to the Invisible, and as "the uttered 
Logos," or Discourse of God. 

This last-mentioned conception of the " uttered 
Logos " appears particularly in the writings of the 
Christian Fathers, and deserves further notice. 
The term " Logos," it will be recollected, in one 
of its primary significations denotes reason, or that 
power by which the mind arranges its ideas in 
their proper relations to each other. But when 
thus arranged, they may be communicated in 
words; and m to ideas thus uttered the term "Lo- 
gos " was also applied, being in this sense equiva- 
lent in signification to " discourse." In the present 
state of our language, we have no term which an- 
swers to " Logos " in this double meaning. But 
in the old and now obsolete use of the word " dis- 
course " we find the same singular union .of the 
two principal senses of Logos ; that word having 

* Ptedagog. Lib. I. c. 7. p. 132. 

t Doctrina Orient & 10. [In Potter's edition of Clement of Alex 
andria, p. 970.] 



370 OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 

been formerly employed, not merely in its present 
signification, but to denote the faculty of reason. 
" The act of the mind," says Glanvill, u which con- 
nects propositions and deduceth conclusions from 
them, the schools call Discourse, and we shall not 
miscall it if we name it Reason." 

To the Catholic Fathers, the double meaning of 
the word u Logos " afforded a favorite illustration 
of the going forth of the Divine Reason to the 
work of creation. Considered as previously exist- 
ing with God, it was described as "the Logos 
within the mind of God," "the internal Logos,"* 
analogous to reason, or thought, in man ; consid- 
ered as the instrument of God in the work of crea- 
tion, it was spoken of as "the uttered Logos," f 
analogous to words uttered by man. 

The Latin Fathers, having no word in their own 
language which, like Logos in the Greek, embraced 
the two significations of Reason and Discourse, 
were embarrassed in their translation of it; and 
hesitated between Ratio, Reason ; Sermo, Dis- 
course; and Verbum, Word. The first was the 
proper term, \ but usage, from some cause which 
we cannot discover, at last settled upon the term 

* Aoyos ivbidderoS' f Aoyos ivpofyopiKos- 

% "Rationem Grapci \6yov dicunt, quo vocabulo etiam sermonem ap- 
pellamus. Ideoque jam in usu est nostrorum [i. e. Latinorum], per 
simplicitatem interpretations, sermonem dicere in primordio apud Deum 
fuisse,cum magis rationem competat antiquiorem haberi." Tertullian. 
advers. Praxeam, c. 5. [Compare Lactantius : " Sed melius Graeci 
\6yov dicunt quam nos verbum sive sermonem ; Xoyos enim et ser 
monem significat et rationem ; quia ille est et vox et sapientia Dei ' 
(Institut. Lib. IV. c. 9.)] 



OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 371 

"Wold"; and this has in consequence been 
adopted, in the theological dialect of modern 
times, as the proper rendering of " Logos," when 
used concerning the Deity. The term, however, 
is wholly inappropriate and unmeaning; and has 
served to confuse still further a subject in itself 
abundantly perplexed. 

This recurrence to the double meaning of the 
word " Logos," this conception of the hypostatized 
Logos, or the Son, as the uttered discourse or the 
word of the Father, or God, is common throughout 
the writings of the Fathers. It was an imagina- 
tion of their own, not derived from Philo, who, in 
speaking of the Logos of God, has reference only 
to that signification of the term in which it an- 
swers to " reason." If, in treating this subject, 
there be any traces in his writings of a reference 
to the other signification of the term, in which it 
answers to M discourse," they are, to say the least, 
few and doubtful. I think there are none.* The 



* The fact has been remarked by Le Clerc : " Adi Philonem ubi- 
cunque Aoyov et Creationis Mundi meminit, videbisque de Sermone 
nusquam eum cogitasse, sed Ratiords potestatem animo prsesentem 
habuisse." Nov. Test. Hammondi et Clerici. Ed. 2da. Tom. I. p. 398, 
col. 2. 

Nearider, in the Introduction to his History of the Principal Gnos- 
tic Sects (Genetische Entwickelung der vornehmsten gnostischen 
Systeme, p. 8), says that "Philo, in common with the Oriental theo- 
logians and the Gnostics, distinguishes between a hidden, incompre- 
hensible God, retired within himself, not to be described or imagined, 
and the Manifestation of this Divinity, as the commencement of the 
work of creation, and of the development of life; between Jehovah 
(6 oil/, to ov) and his Manifestation, or, in other words, the aggregate 
of all the Powers hidden within the being of God." The meaning of 
36 



372 OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 

incongruous junction of the idea of an uttered dis- 
course or a word, and that of the hypostatized at- 
tribute of reason, in the conception of the Logos, 
is to be found developed only in the writings of 
the Fathers. 

The confusion of ideas produced by this con- 
fusion of the meanings of the word " Logos " may 
be easily imagined. Abundant illustrations of it 
may be found in most histories of the doctrine of 
the Trinity. I will quote only one passage, a 
sufficient specimen perhaps, which I find adduced 
as a satisfactory answer to an Arian objection, by 
a writer once of some note, Dr. William Sherlock.* 

" As for Christ's receiving commands from the 
Father, though this relates to the execution of his 
mediatory office, and so concerns him as God In- 
carnate, as by the dispensation of the Gospel he is 
the minister of God's will and pfeasure, yet I grant 
even as God he receives commands from his Fa- 
ther, but it is no otherwise than as he receives his 
nature from him : by nature he is the Word, the 

the last clause, I presume, is the aggregate display of all the Powers 
before hidden within the being of God. But this seems to me not an 
accurate account of the opinions of Philo ; and still less can I assent 
to what follows. " Philo has always before his eyes the opposition 
between clvai and Xe'yeo-#au the former denoting the existence of 
God as retired within himself, and the latter, his being uttered, or 
manifested." — "Philo immer vor Augen hat den Gegensatz zwischen 
einem e»/cn, in sich selbst seyn, und \eyecr6aL, ausgesprochen, geoflen- 
bart werden." I think it may be safely said, that Philo nowhere ap- 
plies the word KeyecrOaL to God in the sense supposed, or uses con 
cerning him the image in question. 

* See his Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 154, 155. 



OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 37^ 

Wisdom, the Command of the Father; his reflex 
Image, whereby he produces all the designs of his 
own wisdom and counsel into act. Thus St. Aus- 
tin answered the Arian objection, that Christ was 
but God's instrument, and made the world by 
God's command. ' Let them consider with what 
other words the Father commanded his only Word. 
But they frame to themselves an imagination of 
two [persons] near one another, but separated by 
their distinct places, one commanding, another 
obeying. Nor do they understand that the Fa- 
ther's command itself, that all things should be 
made, is no other Word of the Father, but that 
by which all things are made';* that is, the sub- 
stantial Word, and Wisdom, and Command of 
the Father, his only-begotten Son." 

It was from the shapeless, discordant, unintel- 
ligible speculations which have been described, ex 
tarda colluvie rerum, that the doctrine of the Trinity 
drew its origin. These speculations it is now diffi- 
cult to present under such an aspect as may en- 
able a modern reader to apprehend their character. 
But the doctrine to which they gave birth still 
subsists, as the professed faith of the greater part 
of the Christian world. And when we look back 



" * Cogitent qnibus aliis verbis jusserit Pater unico verbo. Formant 
enim sibi in phantasmate cordis sui, quasi duos aliquos, etsi juxta 
invuem, in suis tamen locis constitutes, unum jubentem, alterum 
obtemperantem. Nee intelligunt ipsam jussionem Patris ut fierent 
omnia, non esse nisi verbum Patris, per quod facta sunt omnia. — 
Aug contr. Serm. Arianorum, Lib. III." 



374 OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 

through the long ages of its reign, and consider al] 
its relations, and all its direct and indirect effects, 
we shall perceive that few doctrines have produced 
more unmixed evil. For any benefits resulting 
from its belief, it would be in vain to look, except 
benefits of that kind which the providence of God 
educes from the follies and errors of man. 

It should be remarked, however, that little blame 
or discredit attaches to those earlier Fathers by 
whom the doctrine was introduced. They only 
philosophized concerning the Logos after the fash- 
ion of their age. Their only reproach is, that they 
were not wiser than their contemporaries. In pro- 
ceeding from the same principles, they stopped far 
short of the extravagances of the Gnostics. Their 
speculations, likewise, till after the time of Origen, 
were obviously considered by them more as a mat- 
ter of philosophy than of faith. There is sufficient 
evidence that, before and during his time, these 
speculations took little hold on the minds of com- 
mon Christians. " The great body of those who 
are considered as believers," says Origen, " know- 
ing nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified, think- 
ing that the Logos made flesh is the whole of the 
Logos, are acquainted with Christ only according 
to the flesh." * 

* "Erepoi 8e oi firjdeu eldares el fxr) ^l-qaovv Xpiorbv kcu tovtov 
eoravpcDfievov, tov yevofxevov aapKa \6yov to tvclv vojjLicravT€S elvat 
tov Xoyou, Xpiarov Kara adpKa \ibvov yivoocncovo'i. Tolovtov 8( 
iari to 7r\r)6os tcov 7r€7ri(TTevKevai yo/-u fo/ze j/a>j/. Origen. Com- 
ment, in Joannem. Opp. IV. 53. 



SECTION XL 



CONCLUSION. 



In concluding this argument, I wish to make a 
few remarks concerning those general views of re- 
ligion that I have directly or indirectly expressed, 
and which are usually connected with the opinions 
I have maintained. In doing so, I shall drop the 
singular pronoun, and blend myself with those, 
whoever they may be, whose sentiments corre- 
spond with my own. I speak in the name of no 
party ; I am responsible for no opinions which I 
do not express, and no man is responsible for mine; 
but it would be false modesty, or presumption, to 
regard myself as standing alone. 

We, then, who reject the whole system which 
among Protestants has been denominated " Ortho- 
doxy," as a system of the most pernicious errors, 
are charged by its defenders with depriving Chris- 
tianity of all its value, with contemning all its 
peculiar doctrines, with rejecting all but its name. 
What is it, then, that we believe ? and what is it 
that our opponents believe ? 

Christianity, we believe, has taught men to 
know God, and has revealed him as the Father of 
his creatures. It has made known his infinite per- 
fections, his providence, and his moral government. 
It has directed us to look up to Him as the Being 

36* 



376 CONCLUSION. 

on whom we and all things are entirely dependent, 
and to look up to Him with perfect confidence and 
love. It has made known to us that we are to live 
for ever; it has brought life and immortality to 
light. Man was a creature of this earth, and it 
has raised him to a far nobler rank, and taught 
him to regard himself as an immortal being, the 
child of God. It calls the sinner to reformation 
and hope. It affords to virtue the highest possible 
sanctions. It gives to sorrow its best, and often 
its only consolation. It presents us, in the life of 
our great Master, with an example of that moral 
perfection which is to be the constant object of our 
exertions. It has established the truths which it 
teaches, upon evidence the most satisfactory. It 
is a most glorious display of the benevolence of 
the Deity, and of his care for the beings of this 
earth. It has lifted the veil which separated God 
from his creatures, and this life from eternity. 

But all this, it seems, is nothing, unless it also 
teach, that there are three persons who constitute 
the one God ; or at least that there is some three- 
fold distinction, we know not what, in the Divin- 
ity ; that one of these persons or distinctions was 
united in a most incomprehensible manner to the 
human nature of Christ, so that the sufferings of 
the latter were the sufferings of the former ; and 
that it is only through these sufferings of the Son 
of God that we may hope for the mercy of his 
Father. The religion of joy and consolation will, 
it is contended, lose its value, unless it announce 
to us, that we are created under the wrath and 



CONCLUSION. ii77 

curse of God ; that it is impossible for us to per- 
form his will, unless our moral natures be created 
anew ; and that this is a favor denied to far the 
greater part of men, who are required to perform 
what he has made it morally impossible they 
should perform, with the most unrelenting rigor, 
and under penalty of the most terrible and ever- 
lasting torments. Such doctrines as these are 
represented as the peculiar doctrines of Christian- 
ity, those from which it derives its value ; and our 
opponents appear to think, that if nothing better 
was to be effected than to make God known to 
men, to reveal to them his paternal character, to 
bring life and immortality to light, and to furnish 
the highest motives to virtue, it was not worth 
while for the Deity to interpose in a special man- 
ner to effect purposes so unimportant. 

The doctrines which we believe to be established 
by Christianity are doctrines of inestimable value. 
The question of their truth is one which interests 
us most deeply. Our happiness and our virtue are 
at stake on the decision. If they are not true, we 
are miserable indeed. The brute, satisfied with 
the enjoyments of the present day, has a preferable 
tenure of existence to that of man, if they are both 
to perish together. But if these doctrines are true, 
th*ere is a prospect displayed before us inconceiv- 
ably glorious and delightful. They are truths 
which it was worthy of God to teach. Look 
again at the doctrines which we are opposing. 
Are these doctrines of any importance or value ? 
Is it important to our virtue and happiness, that 



378 CONCLUSION. 

there should be a threefold distinction in the Di- 
vine Nature ; or that the mercy of God which is 
extended toward us should have been purchased 
with the blood of his Son ? Is it desirable for us 
to be satisfied that our natures are so depraved, 
that, till they are changed by the act of God, we 
can do nothing to please him ? Examine the 
creeds of what is called Orthodoxy; and read the 
summary of obligations which these creeds teach 
us that we lie under to God as our Maker. What 
obligations would be due from his creatures to a 
being who had formed them under his " displeas- 
ure and curse," made them "bond-slaves to Satan," 
and "justly liable" — the absurdity is as gross 
as the impiety — "to all punishments in this world, 
and in that which is to come." With what feel- 
ings might such creatures justly regard their 
Maker ? What is the character which they would 
have a right to ascribe to him ? It would be 
mockery to ask, if it be desirable that this doctrine 
should be true; or if Christianity would lose its 
value, should it appear that it taught no such doc- 
trine. 

It is because we have a strong conviction of the 
inestimable importance of true religion to hu- 
man virtue and happiness, and therefore desire to 
promote its influence, that we wish men to know 
and believe that these are not the doctrines ot 
Christianity. It is because God ought to be the 
object of our perfect veneration and love, that we 
revolt at doctrines which confound and darken our 
ideas of his nature, which represent one person in 



CONCLUSION. 379 

the Deity as exacting, and another as submitting 
to, the punishment of our offences ; and at other 
doctrines far worse than these, which, if it were 
possible for them to have their full influence upon 
the mind, would make God an object of utter 
horror and detestation. We believe that the great 
truths of religion taught by Christianity are the 
foundation of public and private happiness, of the 
good order of well-regulated society, of purity of 
morals, of our domestic enjoyments, of all that is 
most generous and most disinterested in the hu- 
man character, of all those qualities which endear 
man to man ; that they make life cheerful, and rec- 
oncile us to death ; and that it is on these that the 
character must be formed which will fit us for 
heaven ; — and it is therefore that we wish them 
to be presented to men such as they really are, free 
from the gross errors which human folly and per- 
versity have connected with them, — errors that have 
prevented their reception, and essentially counter- 
acted their influence. 

Especially at the present time, when, through 
the discredit and odium cast upon Christianity by 
the false systems that have assumed its name, its 
power has been annihilated through a great part 
of the civilized world, and it has come to be re- 
garded by a very large portion of the educated 
classes of society as an obsolete superstition, the 
call is most imperative upon those to whom the 
welfare of their fellow-men is an object of concern, 
to use all means at their command to re-establish 
its true character. If they are indeed engaged in 



880 CONCLUSION. 

supporting the cause of true religion against 
irreligion and superstition, then the hopes of man- 
kind are staked upon their success. All efforts to 
promote the influence of Christianity will be inef- 
fectual, till its real character is understood and 
acknowledged ; for of all the opposition to which 
it is exposed, that which substitutes in its place 
any of those false systems that have assumed its 
name is at the present day the most pernicious. 
If the doctrines against which we contend are 
false, then the worst enemy of Christianity is he 
who asserts them to have been taught by Christ. 

In concluding this work, I should not speak of 
myself personally, were it not for the desire which 
every reader naturally feels to know the probable 
motives of one who addresses him on any impor- 
tant topic of practical interest. Disconnected, in 
a great degree, from the common pursuits of the 
world, and independent of any party or of any 
man's favor, there is, perhaps, scarcely an individ- 
ual to whom it can be a matter of less private con- 
cern what opinions others may hold. No one will 
suppose, that, if literary fame were my object, I 
should have sought it by such a discussion as this 
in which I have engaged. Even among those who 
have no prejudices in favor of the errors opposed, 
much indifference and much disgust to the subject 
must be overcome, before I can expect this work 
to find any considerable number of readers. I 
commenced it not long after one of the severest 
deprivations of my life, the loss of a most valued, 



CONCLUSION. 381 

and most justly valued friend, and have continued 
it with sickness and death around me. I have 
been writing, as it were, on the tombstones of 
those who were most dear to me, with feelings 
of the character, purposes, and duties of life which 
my own death-bed will not strengthen. I may, 
then, claim at least that share of unsuspicious at- 
tention to which every one is entitled who cannot 
be supposed to have any other motive in main- 
taining his opinions, than a very serious, earnest, 
and enduring conviction of their truth and impor* 
tance. 



APPENDIX. 



APPENDIX. 



NOTE A. 

(See p. 251.) 

EXPLANATION OF JOHN vi. 61, 62/ 

u Does this give you offence ? What, then, if 
you should see the Son of Man ascending where 
he was before ? " 

In these and the following words, Jesus is re- 
marking upon, and in part explaining, what he has 
before said. The purport of the words is this : 
Does it offend you that I speak of my death ? 
Would your offence continue, «hould you see me 
after my death ascending to heaven ? 

It mav be that Jesus here referred to his ascen- 

%/ 

sion from earth and disappearance from the view 
of his discioles. But if he did so, that miracle 
was, I conceive, present to his mind only as a 
proof and visible emblem of what he principallv 
intended in his words. What he principally in- 
tended was his return to God from whom he came, 
after passing through his sufferings and death. 

• From Mr. Norton's Notes on the Gospels. 



386 



APPENDIX. 



It is to be remarked, that, here and elsewhere, 
the expressions " coming from " and " descending 
from " heaven or God, which are founded on Jew- 
ish conceptions of heaven as the local habitation of 
the Deity, are in their nature necessarily figurative, 
and do not admit of being taken in a verbal sense. 
God is in no one place rather than in another. 
There is no portion of space that may be desig- 
nated as heaven on account of its being his pecu- 
liar habitation. " To be in heaven," or " to be 
with God," does not denote existence in any par- 
ticular place. " To descend from heaven," or " to 
come from God," does not imply previous existence 
in any particular place. So to understand such 
expressions is to take words necessarily figurative 
in their literal meaning. 

" Enoch walked with God " ; — " Their cry ivent 
up to God " ; — " The spirit shall return to God 
who gave it " ; — " Draw near to God " ; — " God 
has departed from me"; — "O God, be not far 
from me"; — "God will hear him from his holy 
heaven " ; — " Look down from heaven, O Lord " ; — 
" The Lord's throne is in heaven " ; — " Whom have 
I in heaven but thee ? " — " God sent me before 
you " ; — "I (the Lord) send thee to the children 

of Israel " ; — " Let ns return to the Lord, 

and he will come to us." In these passages, and 
in numberless others of a similar kind, we perceive 
how the imperfection of human conceptions and of 
human language has led to the use of expressions 
equally figurative with those of "descending from,'* 
and " ascending to," heaven and God. 



NOTE A. 387 

The expressions above quoted are from the Old 
Testament, but they are such as are familiarly used 
in popular language at the present day. We do 
not find among them those harsher figures and 
ruder conceptions which elsewhere are not uncom- 
mon in the Jewish Scriptures. 

In John's own writings, and particularly in his 
reports of the discourses of our Lord, there is much 
language of a similar kind. " There was a man 
[John] sent from God"; — " The only Son who 
is on the bosom of the Father " ; — " Ye will see 
heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending 
and descending to the Son of Man" ; — " The Son 
of Man who is in heaven" ; — " The Father has not 
left vie alone " ; — "I speak what I have seen ivith 
my Father " ; — u I speak to the world what I have 
heard from Him"; — -"There are many rooms in 
my Father's house ; I am going that I may prepare 
a place for you " ; — " He who has seen me has 
seen the Father " ; — " Whoever loves me will 
obey my words ; and my Father will love him, 
and we will come to him, and make our abode with 
him " ; — "I came from the Father into the world ; 
now I am leaving the world, and going' to the 
Father." 

As the conceptions which we finite beings form 
of the Infinite Being must be inadequate and im- 
perfect, so a great part of our language concerning 
him is necessarily inadequate and imperfect, and 
naturally assumes a figurative character. Such, of 
course, is particularly the case with popular lan- 
guage. This is full of modes of speech addressed 

37* 



388 APPENDIX. 

to the imagination and feelings, but of a < afferent 
character among different nations. It abounds 
more with figures, and becomes more remote from 
literal truth, in proportion as it expresses, or is 
conformed to, the conceptions of unphilosophical 
thinkers, — of such a people as the Jews. A great 
mistake will be committed, if from the multitude 
of these figures we pick out one made remarkable, 
perhaps, by being particularly remote from our 
modes of expression, and impose upon it, not the 
literal meaning of the words, for this may be im- 
possible, but some imaginary, mystical meaning, 
which is too obscure to offend us by presenting an 
obvious absurdity. 

Our Lord, in the passage before us, and where 
he speaks of descending from heaven, conforms his 
language to the conception of the Jews, that heaven 
was the peculiar abode of God. But we cannot 
receive this conception as true, and therefore can- 
not understand the words in their literal sense.* 

It may be thought, however, that his declaring 
himself to have descended from heaven was in- 
tended as an affirmation of his pre-existence, for 
that by " heaven " is meant a portion of space 
where beings of a higher order than man reside. 
By " heaven " I conceive that, in the proper sense 
of the word, we mean that future state of blessed- 
ness on which the good will enter after death, and 
in which, as we have no reason to doubt, those 



* [The remainder of this note is from an imperfect draught* whicfr 
had not been revised by the author.] 



NOTE A. 389 

who have been connected oji earth may be near 
each other. But there is no rational foundation 
for the opinion, that those beings who are of a 
higher order than man exist within the limits of 
a certain definite portion of space which is to be 
called heaven. 

Nor would our Lord's supposed declaration of 
his having been a pre-existent spirit, an angel, or 
an archangel, or some being of a still higher order, 
have anything to do with the occasion and purpose 
of his discourse. It could have tended only to be- 
wilder the minds of hearers who, without this new 
difficulty put before them, were already confounded 
by his actions. The immediate occasion of the 
discourse was the necessity of repressing and de- 
stroying, as far as might be, the worldly passions 
and expectations of the Jews arising from their 
false notions of the temporal reign of the Messiah. 
Its purpose was to direct their thoughts to the true 
grounds of his authority, not as a warrior and 
earthly king, but as a teacher sent from God and 
speaking in God's name ; — to the character neces- 
sary in his followers, who were not to be bold 
partisans of a temporal prince, but to do the works 
which God required ; — to the blessings which 
would be conferred upon them, not such as might 
be looked for from a triumphant leader, but eternal 
life ; — and to the means by which this blessedness 
was to be procured for his followers, not by his 
success as a conqueror, but by his sufferings and 
bloody death. 

Among these thoughts there could be no pro- 



390 



APPENDIX. 



priety in his introducing the supposed doctrine 
that he himself was a pre-existent being. On the 
contrary, here, as in his other discourses, he keeps 
himself individually out of view. He is to be 
obeyed, not because he is a being in his own 
nature far superior to man, but because he is the 
minister of God. He speaks of no authority de- 
rived from what he was in himself, but of the 
authority conferred on him by God. 

Nor does it appear that even the Jews so mis- 
took or perverted his meaning as to put a literal 
sense upon his words. When he told them that 
he was " the true bread from heaven," " the bread 
of life," " the bread of God which was descending 
from heaven and giving life to the world," it was 
impossible for the Jews or any other hearers not to 
recognize that all these expressions were figurative, 
and especially, that by " descending from heaven," 
as used concerning the bread of God, could be 
meant nothing more than " coming from God." 
The turns of expression here employed are meta- 
phors borrowed from the account given in the 
Psalms of the manna, as bread rained from heaven 
(the visible heavens) to preserve the lives of the 
Israelites. (See Psalm lxxviii. 23-25.) We can- 
not reasonably suppose that the Jews imagined 
our Lord to affirm that he had descended from 
the visible heavens in a bodily shape, or thought 
of his claiming to be a pre-existent spirit, coming 
from those abodes of the blessed which we call 
heaven. 



NOTE A. 391 

As has already been remarked, the expressions 
" to come from God " and " to descend from heav- 
en " are synonymous. (See John iii. 2, 13, 31.) 
They both denote the appearing among men as a 
minister of God miraculously authorized by him. 
" To go to heaven " and iC to go to God " are at 
the present day perfectly familiar expressions, but 
equally figurative with those on which we are 
remarking. They mean, to pass from this life to 
a higher state of existence, in which God will con- 
fer new happiness on the good. 

In speaking of himself as having descended from 
heaven, the meaning of our Lord is the same as 
when in this discourse he repeatedly designates 
himself as " him whom God has sent" u I have 
descended from heaven^ not to do my own will, but 
the will of Him who sent me." (Verse 38 ; com- 
pare vv. 29, 39, 40, 44, 46, 57.) 

* * * * * 

Thus far, in explaining the metaphor by whiuh 
Jesus represents himself as the bread descending 
from heaven, we find nothing which is not analo- 
gous to our own forms of expression. But in the 
words particularly under consideration a figure oc- 
curs, which, though it is used by writers of the 
Old and New Testament, and other ancient writ- 
ers, Christian and Jewish, has not found a place 
among our modes of speech. It is connected with 
less philosophical conceptions of God than those 
which Christianity has taught us to entertain. In 
the use of this figure, events and persons and states 



392 APPENDIX. 

of being, which it is intended to refer in the strong- 
est manner to the appointment of God, and to rep- 
resent him as having especially predestined, are 
spoken of as having a proper existence while yet 
existing only in his foreknowledge and purpose. I 
have elsewhere explained the design of this figure, 
and given many examples of it. See the notes on 
John xvii. 5 and viii. 58.* It is one which occurs 
repeatedly in the language of our Lord, as his 
language is reported by John ; as when he says, 
" And now, Father ! glorify me with thyself, giv- 
ing me that glory which I had with thee before the 
world was" " Thou didst love me before the foun- 
dation of the world" (Ch. xvii. 5, 24.) In like 
manner, his being and office being predetermined 
by God before the world was, he here speaks of 
himself as having existed with God before his ap- 
pearance on earth. 

• [See before, pp. 235 - 246] 



NOTE B. 

(See p. 284.) 

ON THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE APOSTLES CON- 
CERNING THE VISIBLE RETURN OF THEIR MAS- 
TER TO EARTH. 

The language of our Saviour respecting his fu- 
ture coming was, I believe, more or less misunder- 
stood by some or all of the Apostles, during a part 
or the whole of their ministry. They looked for- 
ward, with more or less confidence, to a personal 
and visible return of Christ to earth at no distant 
period. The first coming of the Messiah had been 
so wholly unlike what their countrymen had uni 
versally anticipated, that, when he spoke of a future 
coming while the existing generation was still liv- 
ing, they transferred to this some of the expecta- 
tions which had been long entertained respecting 
his appearance and kingdom. It is necessary to 
attend to this fact in connection with the explana- 
tion which has been given of the language of 
Christ. The evidence of it may appear from what 
follows. 

In the last chapter of John's Gospel we have the 
following narrative : * " Peter, turning round, cast 

t 

* John xxi. 20 - 23. 



394 APPENDIX. 

his eyes on the disciple whom Jesus loved, who 
was in the company, — the same who at the sup- 
per was lying at the breast of Jesus, and said to 
him, Master, who is he that will betray you ? — 
Peter, seeing this disciple, said to Jesus, Master, 
and how will it be with him ? Jesus answered 
him, If it be my will that he remain till I come, 
what does it concern you ? Be you my follower. 
Hence spread that report among the brothers, that 
this disciple was not to die ; though Jesus did not 
say to him that he would not die ; but, If it be my 
will that he remain till I come, what does it con- 
cern you ? " 

It was a belief among the Jews, as* we have good 
reason to suppose, that the lives of those saints 
who might be on earth when the Messiah should 
appear would be prolonged through his reign to 
the termination of all things.* This expectation, it 
would seem from the passage quoted, was now 
entertained by the disciples concerning the future 
coming of Christ. 

One of the most cherished hopes of the Jews 
was, that the Messiah would restore the kingdom 
to Israel ; that he would raise the nation to even 
far greater power and splendor than they believed 
it to have enjoyed during the days of David and 
Solomon. Similar expectations were entertained 
by the disciples of Christ till after his death. The 
two who journeyed with him to Emmaus after his 
resurrection said, " We were hoping that it was he 

* See Pocock's Notse Miscellanea in Maimon. Portam Mosig. 
Works, I. 177, 178. 



NOTE B. 395 

who was to be the deliverer of Israel."* The last 
question which his Apostles proposed to him was, 
" Lord, wilt thou now restore the kingdom to 
Israel ? " The false expectation implied in these 
words, it is to be observed, was not corrected by 
our Saviour. He only answered, " It is not for 
you to know the times and the seasons which are 
at the disposal of the Father alone." f The ques- 
tion of the Apostles shows that they had at the 
time no correct understanding of his prophecy con- 
cerning the destruction of the Jewish nation ; and 
that their minds still dwelt on the ancient hopes 
of their countrymen. 

The later Jews have supposed, that at the com- 
ing of the Messiah the saints who are dead will be 
raised from their graves to partake the glories of 
his kingdom.^ It is probable that this is a tradi- 
tionary belief, and that a similar supposition was 
entertained by the Jews in the time of Christ. If 
so, it may have served in part as a foundation for 
the following striking and eloquent passage, in 
which St. Paul expresses to the Thessalonians his 
expectation of the near return of our Saviour to 
earth.§ 

" I would have you understand, brothers, con- 
cerning those who have fallen asleep, that you may 
not sorrow like other men who have no hope. For 

* Luke xxiv. 21. t Acts i. 6, 7. 

X See Pocock's dissertation, " In quo variae Judaeorum de resur- 
rectione mortuorum sententiae expend untur," one of his Notae Mis- 
cellaneae upon the Porta Mosis. Works, I. 159, seqq. 

$ 1 Thess. iv. 13-18. 

38 



396 APPENDIX 

as we believe that Jesus died and rose again, so 
also will God, through Jesus, bring again with him 
those who have fallen asleep. For this we say to 
you, brothers, as teachers from God, that we who 
are living, we who are left till the coming of the 
Lord,* shall not anticipate those who have fallen 
asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from 
heaven, with a summons given by an archangel 
sounding the trump of God ; and they who have 
died in Christ will arise first. Then we who are 
living, we who are left, shall be borne up with them 
into the clouds to meet the Lord in the air ; and so 
shall we be ever with the Lord. So then comfort 
one another with these words." 

The Thessalonians, it is evident from both of the 
Epistles addressed to them, were looking for the 
second coming of Christ as an event not distant 
This expectation they would hardly have enter- 
tained so strongly as they appear to have done, 
had it not been countenanced by St. Paul, through 
whom they had just been converted to Christianity. 
Anticipating that our Saviour was about to come 
in person to establish his kingdom and reward his 
followers, they feared, it seems, that their friends 
who had died might not share in the glories and 
blessings to be then enjoyed by those Christians 
who might be living. It was the purpose of the 
Apostle to remove this apprehension. 

It is thus that the words, ^/xcty oi (covtcs, ol 7repiXei7ro/iei'oi 
els rrjv Trapovalav rod wpiov, should be rendered. St. Paul speaks 
of those who are alive, those who are left till the coming of the Lord 
in contradistinction from those who have fallen asleep. 



NOTE B. 39? 

But if we rightly understand the passage, the 
conceptions of the Apostle respecting our Lord's 
future coming were erroneous. Undoubtedly it ap- 
pears that they were so. But to what does the 
error amount ? Does it affect any important doc- 
trine of religion ? What is the essential fact here 
expressed, concerning the circumstances of which 
St. Paul had fallen into a mistake, in consequence 
of the previous opinions of his countrymen ? The 
essential doctrine — all that can properly be called 
a truth of religion — is this, that, whether the fol- 
lowers of Christ live a longer or a shorter time on 
earth, their future happiness is equally secure. The 
dead and the living are equally the care of God ; 
and the time is coming when they will all meet 
together where their Master has gone before. 

That St. Paul had in view that figurative lan- 
guage in which our Saviour was, as I believe, sup- 
posed to have predicted his future personal coming, 
appears from the words immediately following those 
just quoted. The Apostle adopts the thoughts and 
expressions which the Evangelists represent Christ 
as having used. 

u But concerning the times and the seasons, 
brothers, there is no need that I should write to 
you. For you yourselves know well, that the day 
of the Lord is coming as a thief in the night.* For 

* Compare Matthew xxiv. 43, 44. "But this you know, that if 
the master of a house is aware at what hour a thief is coming, he is 
awake, and suffers not his house to be broken into. So then be you 
always ready ; for in an hour in which you do not expect him, the 
Son of Man will come." 



398 APPENDIX. 

when they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden 
destruction will come upon them,* as the pangs of 
a woman with child ; and they will not escape. 
But you, brothers, are not in darkness, that that 
day should come upon you as a thief. You are 
all children of the light, and children of the day; 
we are not of the night nor of darkness. Let 
as not sleep, then, as others, but watch and be 
sober." f 

With their expectations of the Messiah's king- 
dom, the Jews had connected the belief of the over- 
throw and destruction of his enemies. A similar 
belief we find expressed by St. Paul in his Second 
Epistle to the Thessalonians, (written shortly after 
the First,) in which he encourages them with the 
hope that Christ was coming to deliver them from 
persecution by the destruction of their persecutors. 

" We glory in you, telling the churches of God 
of your constancy and faithfulness in all your per- 
secutions, and the afflictions that you endure ; 
which afford a pledge of that just judgment of 
God, by which you will be declared worthy of 
the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. 
Since it will be just for God to make them suffer 
in return who are afflicting you, and to give you 
who are afflicted rest with us, when the Lord Jesus 
shall be manifested from heaven, with the angels 
of his might, in flaming fire, punishing those who 
know not God, and those who refuse obedience to 
the gospel of our Lord Jesus ; who will suffer top 

* Compare Matthew xxiv. 37 -39 ; Luke xxi. 34, 35. 
t Compare Matthew xxiv. 42-51. 



NOTE B. 399 

penalty of everlasting destruction, inflicted by the 
glorious power of the Lord himself, when he shall 
come in that day to be glorified in his saints, and 
honored in all believers." * 

But the Thessalonians, it appears, nad been 
strongly excited by the expectation of the coming 
of the Lord. They were regarding it as an event 
close at hand. St. Paul, in consequence, though 
he himself anticipated it as not very distant, re- 
minds them, in order to allay the feverish state of 
feeling in which they seem to have been, that he 
had in a previous conversation with them pointed 
out a certain event by which it was to be preceded, 
and which had not yet taken place. This event I 
suppose to have been the rebellion of the Jews 
against the Romans ; but it is not necessary to 
our present purpose to enter into a full explanation 
of the obscure passage to which I refer.f 

We have seen that St. Paul, at the time when 
he wrote his First Epistle to the Thessalonians, 
was looking forward to a resurrection of those 
Christians who had died, which should take place 
at the coming of Christ ; and that he regarded 
himself and those whom he addressed as individ- 
uals who might be living at the time of that event. 
The same anticipations appear in his First Epistle 
to the Corinthians. He says : — 

" Through the Messiah all will be made alive. 
But each in his proper order ; Christ the first fruits ; 
next, they who are Christ's, at his coming. 



* 2 Thess. i. 4 - 10. f 2 Thess. ch. ii 

38* 



400 APPENDIX. 

" Brothers, I tell you a new truth. "We shall not 
indeed all sleep, but we shall all be changed ; in a 
moment, in the glance of an eye, at the last trump ; 
— for the trump will sound, and the dead will be 
raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."* 

St. Taul elsewhere in his Epistles refers, I think, 
to the expected personal appearance of his Master ; 
as, when addressing the Corinthians, some of whom 
were disposed to an unfriendly judgment concern- 
ing him, he says : "Judge nothing before the time, 
till the Lord come, who will bring to light what is 
hidden in darkness, and make manifest the pur- 
poses of men's hearts ; and then every one's praise 
frill be from God."f 

Thus also he exhorts the Romans to. obey the 
precepts he had given them, " understanding the 
time ; for the hour," he says, " has come for us to 
awake from sleep ; for now is our deliverance nearer 
than when we became believers. The night is far 
spent, the day is at hand." J 

To the Philippians (iv. 5) he says, " The Lord is 
at hand," apparently in the same sense in which in 
the Epistle of James (v. 8) it is said, " The coming 
of the Lord is at hand." 

He tells the Corinthians : " I ever thank my God 
for you, on account of the favor of God bestowed 
upon you through Christ Jesus ; for you have been 
enriched by him with all instruction and all knowl- 
edge, the doctrine of Christ having been firmly es- 
tablished among you, so that you are poor in no 

• Ch. xv. 23, 24, 51, 52. f I Cor. iv. 5. 

J Romans xiii. 11, 12. 



NOTE B. 401 

blessing, whilst waiting for the manifestation of 
our Lord Jesus Christ ; and God also will preserve 
you steadfast to the end, so that you may be with- 
out blame in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ."* 

To the Philippians (i. 6) he expresses his confi 
dence, that "he among them who has begun a good 
work will go on to perfect it till the day of Jesus 
Christ." 

We will now take notice of a single passage in 
the First Epistle of St. John. It has been expected 
by the later Jews that the coming of the Antichrist, 
or of the Anti-Messiah, would precede that of the 
Messiah. The same notion seems to have pre- 
vailed among the Jews in the time of Christ, and 
to be referred to by St. John in the following pas- 
sage : — 

" Children, it is the last hour ; and as you have 
heard that the Antichrist is coming, so there are 
now many antichrists, whence we know that it is 
the last hour." f 

There is so little reason to suppose that the Sec- 
ond Epistle ascribed to St. Peter was written by 
him, that it is not to be quoted as evidence of his 
opinions. But in his First Epistle (as it is called), 
that is, probably, in the only writing of his which 
remains, he says : " The end of all things draws 
near. Be sober, therefore, and watch and pray." J 

" Encourage one another," says the author of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, " and so much the more, 
because you see the day is approaching." § 

* 1 Cor. i. 4-8. t 1 John ii. 18. 

t Ch. iv. 7. § Ch. x. 25 



402 APPENDIX. 

1 do not refer to the Apocalypse as the work of 
St. John, for I do not believe it to be so. But as it 
was written during the latter part of the first, or the 
early part of the second century, it affords evidence 
of the opinions of those who were disciples of the 
Apostles. I regard it as the production of some 
early Jewish Christian, whose imagination was 
highly excited by the expected coming of Christ. 
It does not, I think, appear that he himself intended 
to assume the character of the Apostle John, or that 
there is ground for charging him with any fraudu- 
lent design. His work, notwithstanding the imper- 
fection of its language, is in a high strain of poetry. 
The mind of the writer was borne away by his sub- 
ject. He intended, as I conceive, that his visions 
should be understood as imaginary only, like those 
of another work of about the same age, the Shep- 
herd of Hernias, or, to take a more familiar exam- 
ple, like those of Bunyan. The conviction was 
strong upon him, that the second coming of Christ 
was near at hand ; and the object of his work, 
which in modern times has been so ill understood, 
was, I believe, to describe the events by which, ac- 
cording to the belief of his age, or his own particu- 
lar belief, it was to be preceded, accompanied, and 
followed. In the very commencement of his work, 
he professes that it relates to events soon to occur ; 
exhorting his readers to attend to what is written, 
u because the time is near." His words are thus 
rendered in the Common Version : — 

" The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God 
gave unto him, to show unto his servants things 



NOTE B. 403 

which must shortly come to pass ; and he sent and 

signified it by his angel to his servant John 

Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear, the 
words of this prophecy, and keep those things 
which are written therein ; for the time is at hand." 

The words, as thus translated, show, I think, that 
those expositions of the book are erroneous, which 
suppose it to contain a prophecy of events concern- 
ing the Christian Church, extending to our own 
time and beyond, some of the most important not 
having yet taken place. Whatever the writer an- 
ticipated was, as he believed, shortly to come to 
pass. But I suppose that the words contain a 
much clearer indication of his subject, and that 
the first verse should be thus rendered : — 

" The Manifestation of Jesus Christ, which God 
has granted him to show forth to his servants, — 
what must shortly come to pass ; which he has sig- 
nified, sending by his angel to his servant John." 

The near coming of the Lord is several times 
referred to in the work in express terms. In the 
seventh verse of the first chapter, the language 
which our Saviour used when he figuratively spoke 
of his coming to the destruction of the Jewish 
nation, is quoted by the writer : w Lo ! he is com- 
ing in clouds, and every eye will see him, and they 
who pierced him ; and all the tribes of the land 
will lament."* There are elsewhere similar refer- 
ences to the words of Christ. And the book con- 
cludes, as it began, with a declaration, trat the 

* Compare Matthew xxiv. 30. 



404 APPENDIX. 

events anticipated in it were near at hand ; and an 
explicit indication that the main event expected 
was the coming of Christ. " And the angel said 
to me, Seal not up the words of the prophecy of 

this book ; for the time is near Lo ! I am 

coming quickly to bring retribution with me, to 

give to every man according to his works 

He who testifies these things says, Surely I am 
coming quickly. Amen ! Come, Lord Jesus ! " 

- The principal source of illustration for this book 
is to be found in the language and conceptions of 
the later Jews, especially their conceptions of events 
connected with the coming of the Messiah. It is 
from the neglect of this means of illustration, and 
from the erroneous notions respecting the character 
of the work as, properly speaking, prophetical, that 
the imaginations of most modern expositors have 
been so bewildered in its study. The coincidence 
between many of the conceptions of the later Jews, 
and those expressed by the author of the Apoca- 
lypse, leaves little doubt that the former are tradi- 
tionary, and existed in the time of Christ. 

Though the Second Epistle ascribed to Peter 
cannot be quoted in evidence of the opinions of 
that Apostle, it affords proof of a state of opinion 
and feeling existing among Christians at some 
period during the first two centuries. The writer 
says (iii. 3 - 13) : " Be aware of this, that in the 
last days scoffers will arise, following their own 
lusts, and saying, Where is his promised coming ? 
For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue 
as they were since the beginning of the creation. 



NOTE B. 405 

But they wilfully forget, that of old by the word 
of God there were heavens, and an earth rising out 
of the water, and surrounded by water, which 
things being so, the world then existing was de- 
stroyed, being inundated by water ; but the pres- 
ent heavens and the present earth are by his word 
reserved for fire, being kept for a day when the 
impious will be judged and destroyed. Forget not 
this one thing, beloved, that a day with the Lord 
is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a 
day. The Lord is not tardy in performing his 
promise (as some think him tardy), but is patient 
toward us, not willing that any should perish, but 
that all should attain reformation. But the day of 
the Lord will come as a thief, in which the heav- 
ens will pass away with a roaring sound, and the 
elements will melt with fervent heat, and the earth 
and all its works will be burnt up. Seeing, then, 
that all present things are to be dissolved, what 
ought you to be in all holy conduct and pious dis- 
positions, expecting and earnestly desiring the com- 
ing of the day of God, in which the heavens will 
be dissolved by fire, and the elements melt with 
fervent heat. But we, according to his promise, 
expect new heavens and a new earth, in which 
righteousness will dwell." 

Though the author does not in this passage ex- 
plicitly speak of the coming of Christ, — for by the 
title " Lord " God is here intended, — yet I sup- 
pose there is no controversy that he connected in 
his imagination the consummation of all present 
things, which he describes, with that evont. It 



406 APPENDIX. 

appears, then, from what he says, that there had 
been so much expectation among Christians of the 
speedy return of Christ, as to afford occasion for 
the ridicule of scoffers. The writer, it seems, con- 
ceived that it would be attended with the renova- 
tion of all things by fire ; a conception which is not 
to be confounded with that of the consummation 
of all things by fire at the termination of the Mes- 
siah's reign. The former seems to have been pecu- 
liar, and borrowed, not from the notions of the Jews 
concerning the coming of the Messiah, but from 
Gentile philosophy, particularly the Stoic. There 
is nothing answering to it elsewhere in the New 
Testament, nor, I think, in the Jewish traditions. 
It is quite different from the notions entertained by 
the earliest Christian Fathers, which correspond to 
those held by the Jews, and expressed in the Apoc- 
alypse ; though they comprised much which had 
nowhere been taught by any Apostle. The earlier 
Fathers believed, to quote the description of Justin 
Martyr, who appeals to the Apocalypse as his au- 
thority, that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt, adorned, 
and enlarged ; that there was to be a resurrection, 
in which the followers of Christ who were dead, 
together with the patriarchs and prophets and other 
pious Jews, were to return to life; that these, with 
the body of Christians, were to inhabit that city 
with Christ, rejoicing, for a thousand years, at the 
end of which would follow the general resurrection 
and judgment of all. This is the doctrine of the 
Millennium, of the visible reign of Christ in person 
upon earth ; a doctrine which the earlier Christiana 



NOTE B. 407 

would be disposed to receive the more eagerly in 
consequence of the oppression, persecution, and 
deprivation they were suffering. It was, however, 
rejected and opposed by Origen. When Chris- 
tianity became the religion of the state, and worldly 
prosperity shone on its professors, the doctrine grad- 
ually faded out of notice ; but it has existed to our 
own age, transmitted or revived, being held at dif- 
ferent periods by some one or other more enthu- 
siastic sect, in connection with the belief that the 
expected kingdom of Christ is at hand. 

We will now confine our attention to the opin- 
ions of the Apostles, which are to be carefully dis- 
tinguished from all the additions made to them by 
others. I have quoted the writings of different 
Apostles. Probably there were differences of opin- 
ion among them concerning the circumstances 
which would attend the coming of our Lord ; but 
they all appear to have expected his personal and 
visible return to earth as an event not distant ; and 
to have believed that he would come to exercise 
judgment, to reward his faithful followers, to pun- 
ish the disobedient, and to destroy his foes. St. 
Paul, likewise, expected that " the dead who were 
Christ's " would be raised at his coming. He fur- 
ther tells the Thessalonians, that the followers of 
Christ then living would be borne up in the air to 
meet the Lord and continue ever with him; — 
words which imply, that he believed that the end 
of all present things was to be connected with the 
coming of Christ. To the Corinthians, after speak- 
ing of the resurrection of the followers of Christ at 

39 



408 



APPENDIX. 



his coming, he says : " Then will be the end, when 
he will deliver up the kingdom to God, even the 
Father ; after destroying all dominion and all au- 
thority and power. For he must reign till He has 
put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy, 

Death, shall be destroyed And when all 

things are put under him, then will the Son him- 
self be subject to Him who put all things under 
him, that God may be all in all."* We are like- 
wise led to the conclusion that St. Paul connected 
the end of the world with the coming of Christ, by 
the strong language that he uses concerning the 
general judgment of men, which was then to take 
place. Thus he says to Timothy : " I charge thee 
before God, and before Jesus Christ, who will 
judge the living and the dead when he shall appear 
in his kingdom";! and the conception, that we 
must "all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ 
A o receive according to what we have done in the 

ody, either good or evil," is one which he repeat- 
«fly expresses.^ That he looked for the end of the 

orld as following the coming of Christ, may be 
inferred also from his describing those who should 
then rise as passing from mortality to immortality, 
and as clothed with spiritual bodies. " Flesh and 
blood," he says, "cannot inherit the kingdom of 
God."§ St. Peter and St. John likewise speak of 
" its being the last time " ; and of " the end of all 
things being at hand." It is to be particularly ob- 

1 Cor. xv. 24 - 28. t 2 Timothy iv. 1. 

} Komans xiv. 10 ; 2 Corinthians v. 10. 
| 1 Corinthians xv. 50. 



NOTE B. 



409 



Berved, that there is no intimation given by any 
Apostle of a millennial reign of Christ ; a circum- 
stance which, among many others, serves to show 
that the Apocalypse, in which this doctrine is 
clearly taught, was not the work of St. John. 

Such, then, appear to have been the opinions oi 
the Apostles respecting the second coming of their 
Master. I have been led to speak of this subject, 
so important in many of its relations, from its spe- 
cial bearing upon the explanations which I have 
given of the language of our Saviour. I have en- 
deavored to show, that his language concerning his 
future coming, the establishment of his kingdom 
on earth, and his passing judgment upon all men, 
presents no difficulty when compared with subse 
quent events ; that his expressions are figurative 
and that their explanation is to be found in analo- 
gous metaphors, the meaning of which is obvious 
and that, however bold some of them may appear 
they do not transcend the genius of the Oriental 
style. But we find, on the other hand, that his 
Apostles, through causes which I have endeavored 
partly to explain, instead of a figurative coming, 
expected a literal return of their Master to earth, 
before the generation then living should pass away ; 
that, instead of a figurative judgment, they believed 
that on his return he would judge aJl men in per- 
son ; and that, in connection with these events, 
they anticipated the end of all things. These ex- 
pectations were erroneous ; and before the explana- 
tion which has been given of the words of Christ 



410 APPENDIX. 

can be fully admitted, this error must be under- 
stood. We must not read over the passages in 
which it is expressed with a confused misapprehen- 
sion of their sense, as if they related to events still 
future, and were at the same time coincident in 
meaning with the language of Christ. 

Nothing more need be said to illustrate the dif- 
ference which I suppose to exist between his mean- 
ing and the conceptions of the Apostles respecting 
his future coming. But there are questions and 
considerations suggested by the facts brought for- 
ward, which, though not immediately connected 
with the subject of this work, are too important 
to be passed over in silence. Why, it may be 
asked, did not our Saviour prevent his iVpostles 
from falling into the error we have remarked ? 
The answer to this question will open to us views 
of much importance to be attended to in the study 
of the New Testament. 

On many subjects our Saviour refrained from 
entering into a full explanation, and correcting the 
errors of his hearers. They were errors not inti- 
mately connected with the essential truths of re- 
ligion. The course of events, the advance of hu- 
man reason, and the progress of knowledge, would 
afford sufficient correctives ; and he was not sent 
to deliver men from all false opinions, and to fur- 
nish a digest of truth upon every subject. An 
error not important may be so interwoven with an 
essential truth, that it can be separated only by the 
hazardous experiment of unravelling the whole web. 



NOTE B. 411 

A misapprehension of facts may be strongly asso- 
ciated with feelings practically true. Their roots 
may be so twisted round it, that there is danger of 
eradicating them in the attempt to remove it. Nor 
does the communication of truth depend upon the 
instructor alone. No instructor can give a child 
the knowledge of a man. He to whom God had 
opened the treasure-house of wisdom could not 
make all his most willing hearers as wise as him- 
self. Putting out of view all miraculous influence 
upon the mind, men can be advanced in intellectual 
improvement only in proportion to the progress 
which they have already made. A truth, how- 
ever clearly presented, must be in some accordance 
with the previous habits of thinking of him to 
whom it is addressed, in order to be clearly appre- 
hended ; and a truth ill apprehended, detached 
from the relations in which it ought to be viewed, 
may be more mischievous than the error which it 
is intended to supplant. Men must be taught, as 
our Saviour taught them, as " they are able to bear 
it." To have enabled his hearers fully to compre- 
hend all facts and truths connected with Chris- 
tianity, and to have freed their minds from all false 
conceptions concerning the Messiah and his king- 
dom, and every topic which has, or may be sup- 
posed to have, a bearing upon religion, could have 
been effected only by a miracle which would almost 
have changed their identity. Supposing that in the 
particular case of the Apostles such a miracle had 
been wrought, still their hearers would have been 
as dull of apprehension as were those whom Christ 

39* 



412 APPENDIX. 

taught. Had the Apostles been placed in all re- 
spects on an equality with their Master ; had they 
been guided throughout by the same perfect judg- 
ment, which implies not merely the highest intel- 
lectual, but the highest moral excellence ; had they 
each been qualified to supply his place, and entitled 
to every name of honor which belongs to him, — 
their disciples would have held the same place which 
they themselves now do as disciples of Christ. They 
must have taught their followers as their Master 
had taught them ; and whenever this miraculous 
regeneration of intellect ceased, and men's minds 
were left to their natural action, and the cur- 
rent of their opinions was suffered to pursue its 
ordinary course, — whenever infallibility was no 
longer secured by the power of God, — errors of 
some kind would necessarily mingle with men's 
religious faith. As regards the Apostles, we be- 
lieve that their minds were enlightened by the 
Spirit of God, and by direct miraculous communi- 
cations from him, in regard to the essential truths 
of Christianity. But we have no warrant to be- 
lieve, nor is there any probable argument to 
show, that this divine illumination was further 
extended. 

Our Saviour came to teach the essential truths 
of religion. Even these truths were but imper- 
fectly apprehended by most of those who heard 
him, and, I may add, have been but imperfectly 
apprehended by most of those who, from his time 
to our own, have professed themselves to be his 
disciples. When we find, that on the last night 



NOTE B. 



413 



pi his ministry one of his Apostles said to him, 
' 4 Master, show us the Father, and we shall be 
satisfied,"* it may be perceived that there were 
difficulties enough to be overcome in communi- 
cating to them a full apprehension of those ele- 
mentary truths. Their attention was not to be 
withdrawn from them by discussions, doubts, ques- 
tions, and explanations respecting subjects of com- 
paratively little importance, concerning which they 
might have adopted the errors of their age. When, 
referring to the doctrine of the pre-existence of 
souls, a doctrine at that time generally connected 
with the belief of their immortality, they asked, 
" Master, who sinned, this man or his parents, that 
he was born blind ? " f our Saviour in his answer 
did not explain to them the mistake implied in 
those words. "When, under the belief common to 
their countrymen, that the sufferings of this life 
were punishments from God, certain individuals 
came to tell him of the " Galilaeans, whose blood 
Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices," J there 
was nothing in his reply to correct their false con- 
ceptions. The relative importance of different doc- 
trines, the wide separation which divides what is 
essential in true religion from all the accessory 
notions that men have made a part of their re- 
ligion, is very little understood at the present day, 
and was not better understood by the Jews eigh- 
teen centuries ago. In most minds, those opinions 
which they believe or fancy to have anything of a 

* John xiv a t John ix. 2. J Luke xiii. 1 



414 APPENDIX. 

religions character are disposed without regard to 
perspective. They all stand forward equal in mag- 
nitude. It is one of the most striking character- 
istics of the teaching of Christ, that the distinction 
between the essential truths of religion and all 
other doctrines, true or false, was never confounded 
by him. He fixed the attention of his hearers only 
upon what it most concerned them to know as re- 
ligious beings, that is, as creatures of God and 
heirs of immortality. In order to effect this pur- 
pose, it was necessary for him to confine his teach- 
ing to the essential truths of religion. If he had 
done otherwise, if he had labored to correct the 
errors of his hearers upon subjects of minor impor- 
tance, and to place the truth distinctly before them 
in all those new relations which it might present, 
his hearers would unavoidably have confounded 
the doctrines thus taught them upon divine au- 
thority with those essential principles which alone 
it was the purpose of God to announce. Their 
imaginations and feelings might perhaps have been 
more occupied about what it was of little conse- 
quence for them to know, than about truths which 
it was of the highest concern that they should un- 
derstand themselves, and be qualified to teach to 
others. 

But there is another aspect under which the sub- 
ject is to be viewed. We must consider, not mere- 
ly the disciples, but the enemies of Christ ; we must 
regard the character of the ignorant, prejudiced, un- 
stable multitudes whom he addressed, and whom 
his Apostles were to address ; and we rr.ust recol- 



NOTE B. 41ft 

lect, that whatever he taught to his Apostles was 
in effect taught to all ; that it was their proper 
office to publish his whole doctrine. Now in com- 
municating to men the essential truths of religion, 
and in confining his attention to these alone, he 
had to encounter prejudices and passions the most 
obstinate and violent. Superstition, fanaticism, 
and hypocrisy, all that is in most direct opposition 
to the love of God and man, constituted the re- 
ligion of a great part of the Jews. It was vital to 
the selfish purposes and to the authority of those 
who were leaders among the people, that the errors 
which prevailed should retain their power over 
men's minds. The bigotry of false religion was at 
the same time inflamed by national pride. This 
opposition Christ had to encounter, and hence he 
was assailed throughout his ministry with continual 
cavil, reproach, and persecution; and he saw from 
its commencement, that he should soon become 
their victim. The circumstances in which he was 
placed required the utmost circumspection, judg- 
ment, and self-command. No new prejudice was 
to be needlessly excited. No unnecessary occasion 
of cavil was to be presented. No opportunity for 
perverting or contradicting his words was to be 
given, that could be avoided consistently with the 
purpose of his mission. It was not for him to 
waste the numbered days of his ministry, in which 
so much was to be accomplished, to perplex his 
hearers, and to exasperate his foes, by entering into 
controversy or explanations respecting topics of 
minor concern. The hold which a prejudice has 



416 a /PEtt* ix. 

upon the mind is ofte out of all proportion to any 
show of proof that muy be brought in its support. 
Questions, the discussion of which we should now 
regard only as an object of ridicule, have in other 
ages been the occasion of rancorous contention. 
In the fourteenth century, a dispute raged in the 
Greek empire concerning the question, whether 
the light which shone round Christ at his trans- 
figuration was created or uncreated. Four coun- 
cils were assembled, and those who affirmed it to 
be created, and held the consequences which were 
supposed to be connected with this doctrine, were 
anathematized as worse than all other heretics* 
If a new teacher of true religion had been sent 
from God to the men of that age, we may easily 
comprehend, that few mistakes would have tended 
more to render his mission fruitless, than for him 
to have entered into any explanation, or to have 
passed any judgment, upon this controversy. In 
the defence of what we now consider as gross 
errors, a blind and deaf bigotry has been displayed, 
the strength of which it is hard to estimate since 
the delusion has passed away. It is not yet two 
centuries since the denial of the then common 
belief of witchcraft was regarded as implying the 
denial of the agency of any spiritual being, of the 
existence of the invisible world, and consequently 

* See Petavii Dogmata Theologica. De Deo Deique Proprie- 
tatibus, Lib. I. c. 12. Compare Mosheim's Institutes of Ecclesiasti- 
cal History, Cent. XIV. P. II. Ch. V. §§1,2; Gieseler, Bd. II. 
Abth. III. § 129, 2te AufL, or Vol. III. § 127, Cunningham's Trans- 
lation.] 



NOTE B. 417 

as virtual atheism.* In the time of Christ, and for 
a long period before, the doctrine of dsemoniacal 
possession prevailed among the Jews, and many- 
diseases were ascribed to this cause. Our Saviour 
never taught that this was a false doctrine. He 
occasionally used language conformed to the con- 
ceptions of those who believed it to be true. Why 
was he silent on this subject ? Why did he leave 
some, if not all, of his Apostles in error concerning 
it, as appears from the common belief being ex- 
pressed in the first three Gospels, though not in 
that of St. John ? Let us consider, that, if he 
had taught the truth, he would immediately have 
been denounced by his enemies as an unbeliever 
in the invisible world, as a Sadducee teaching that 
"there was neither angel nor spirit"; — that the 
error in question was intimately connected with 
many others, concerning the existence of Satan, 
the origin of evil, the rules of God's government 
of the world, the mental and physical constitution 
of man, and the power of magic and incanta- 
tions ; — that it would have been idle to declare 



# u For my part," says Sir Thomas Browne, " I have ever be- 
lieved, and do now know, that there are witches. They that doubt 
of them do not only deny them, but spirits ; and are obliquely and 
of consequence a sort, not of infidels, but atheists. " (Religio Medici, 
Part I.) Glanvill's " Sadducismus Triumphatus" is a work in de- 
fence of the common superstition, by one of the able men of his age, 
in which he represents, as may be supposed from the title, all disbe- 
lievers in witchcraft as destitute of religion. A great part of Dr. 
Henry More's "Antidote to Atheism w consists of stories of supposed 
supernatural events, apparitions, witchcraft, and pretended miraca 
ious operations of God's providence. 



41 S APPRNTMX. 

himself against one of these errors, unless he had 
opposed them all ; — that he was surrounded by 
ignorant and prejudiced hearers, wholly unaccus- 
tomed to exercise their minds upon any general 
truth ; — and that, had it been possible to instruct 
them thoroughly upon any one of the subjects I 
have mentioned, he must, in order to effect this, 
have turned aside from the great purpose of his 
ministry, and have withdrawn their attention from 
it. It would have been the labor of a long life to 
enlighten the minds of any considerable number of 
Jews upon topics such as these. 

Let us consider another case. The Jews had 
adopted what is called the allegorical mode of in- 
terpreting their sacred books ; and had found many 
supposed predictions and types of their expected 
Messiah in factitious senses which they ascribed to 
particular passages. This mode of interpretation 
was adopted by some of the Apostles. We find 
examples of it as used by them in the Gospels of 
both Matthew and John, and in the Acts of the 
Apostles. One is surprised, perhaps, that this mis- 
take was not corrected by Christ. Nothing may 
seem more simple, than that he should have indi 
cated that this whole system of interpretation, and 
this method of proof, so far as the supposed proph- 
ecies were applied to himself, were erroneous. 
But would you have had him at the same time 
teach the whole art of interpretation ? If he had 
not done so, errors as great might have been com- 
mitted from some other cause. If he had corrected 
some wrong conceptions only, and left others, the 



NOTE B. 419 

latter from that very circumstance would have ac- 
quired new authority. But to have taught the art 
of interpretation only would not have been suffi- 
cient to enable his hearers to become skilful ex- 
positors of the Old Testament ; he must have 
settled the yet disputed questions concerning the 
age, the authorship, the authority, and what has 
been called the inspiration, of the different writings 
that compose it ; and whoever has studied these 
subjects with an unbiassed and inquiring mind 
may, I think, be satisfied that the truth concerning 
them is such as no Jew was prepared to listen to, 
and few indeed would have listened to without as- 
tonishment and wrath. 

But let us suppose that he had attempted only 
to correct the single error which consisted in the 
false application of many passages to the Messiah : 
what would have been the consequence ? His 
enemies would undoubtedly have contended, that 
it was idle to suppose him to be the Messiah. He 
does not even pretend, they would have trium- 
phantly said, to be the object of the prophecies by 
which, according to all those learned in the Law 
and in our traditions, the Messiah is foretold. Per- 
haps he would have us believe, that no Messiah 
has been promised ; but that he has as good a 
claim as any other to that title. Has he not come 
from Beelzebub, to teach that the prophecies are 
false and our hopes vain, that God has ceased to 
care for his people, and thus to seduce us from oui 
faith and allegiance ? 

40 



420 APPENDIX. 

But in connection with this subject there is an- 
other fact to be attended to. In teaching or en- 
forcing truth, the language of error may be used in. 
order powerfully to affect the feelings ; because it 
has associations with it which no other language 
will suggest. Such use of it implies no assent to 
the error on which it is founded. He who employs 
the epithets "diabolical," or "fiendish,'' affords from 
that circumstance alone no reason to suppose that 
he believes in the existence of devils or fiends. 
There is much language of the same character. 
We still borrow many expressions from imaginary 
beings of ideal beauty and grace, from fairies and 
sylphs, beings whose real existence was once be- 
lieved. We have no reluctance to use words de- 
rived from the false opinions concerning witchcraft, 
possession, and magic. We use those which have 
been mentioned, and many terms of a similar kind, 
because they furnish, or seem to furnish, expres- 
sions more forcible than we could otherwise com- 
mand. But this fact has been disregarded in rea- 
soning from the language of Christ. Expressions 
founded upon the conceptions of the Jews, and 
used by him because no other modes of speech 
would have so powerfully affected their minds, 
have been misunderstood as intended to convey a 
doctrine taught by himself. This remark is appli- 
cable to those few passages in his discourses in 
which he speaks, according to the belief of the 
Jews, of Satan as if he were a real being, such as 
the following : " I saw Satan falling from heaven 
like lightning" ; — " Your father is the Devil, and 



NOTE B. 421 

^ou are ready to execute his evil purposes"; — 
" The enemy who sowed the tares is the Devil"; — 
and particularly to the figurative and parabolic 
narrative in which he represented himself as hav- 
ing been tempted by Satan. I say in which 
he represented himself, for it is evident that the 
narrative of the Evangelists could have been de- 
rived from Christ alone. Satan was regarded by 
the Jews as the great adversary of God and man, 
the Tempter, the Accuser, the source of moral and 
physical evil. No words could so forcibly impress 
them with a conception of the odiousness and de- 
pravity of any act or character, as by resembling 
it to him, or referring it to him as its suggester 
or author. They were familiar with the imagina- 
tion of such a being, and through this imagina- 
tion their minds were most powerfully to be af- 
fected. The abstract idea of moral evil, if, indeed, 
they could have apprehended it, would have been 
to them a shadowy phantom, compared with it as 
hypostatized and vivified in its supposed malig- 
nant author. Under circumstances in which it is 
impossible to explain the whole truth, or in which 
it is certain that the whole truth cannot be under- 
stood and felt, in addressing men who are unac- 
customed to exercise their understandings, and who 
from childhood have incorporated false conceptions 
with right principles of action, we may use their 
errors for their reformation ; we may appeal to 
their feelings or their fears through their mistaken 
imaginations ; we may employ one wrong opinion 
to counteract others more pernicious ; and in r*«- 



422 APPENDIX. 

Boning, exhortation, or reproof, we may thus avail 
ourselves of their more innocent prejudices in oppo- 
sition to their passions and vices. But in doing 
this, we are precluded from directly assailing those 
prejudices ; though we may at the same time be 
establishing truths which will effect their gradual 
abolition. Such was, I believe, in some particu- 
lars, the mode of teaching adopted by Christ, 

In regard to some of the errors of his disciples, it 
may be a question whether the plainest language 
would in itself alone have been sufficient to remove 
them. I may rather say, it evidently would not 
have been sufficient. The very subject of this vol- 
ume shows, if the opinions maintained in it be true, 
that the plainest language has not been sufficient 
to preserve men from the grossest errors. Yet the 
words of Christ have not less authority as recorded 
in the Gospels, than when uttered by his own lips. 
But we are not obliged to reason thus indirectly. 
We may see in the accounts of his ministry, how 
often our Saviour was not understood by his disci- 
ples. As he was approaching Jerusalem for the 
last time, he called the Twelve together and said : 
" Lo ! we are going up to Jerusalem," and the Son 
of Man " will be delivered into the hands of the 
Gentiles, and mocked, and insulted, and spit upon ; 
and having scourged him, they will put him to 
death ; and on the third day he will return to life." 
No language can be more simple and explicit than 
this. But the Evangelist goes on to relate, that 
the Apostles "understood this not at all ; the mean- 



NOTE B. 423 

ing of his words was hidden from them, and they 
did not comprehend what he said."* How little 
they understood this and other declarations of 
Christ may appear from the fact, that the next 
event recorded by the Evangelists is the application 
on the part of James and John for the highest 
places, under Christ, in that temporal kingdom on 
which their hopes were still fixed. The prediction 
of his resurrection, though repeatedly made by him, 
was, we know, so little comprehended by them, that 
no hope, and apparently no thought, of that event 
was entertained by them after his death. It is not 
strange, therefore, that they expected a visible re- 
turn of our Saviour from heaven, to establish his 
kingdom, though he himself had declared, " The 
kingdom of God is not coming with any show that 
may be watched for ; nor will men say, Lo ! it is 
here ; or, Lo ! it is there ; for lo ! the kingdom of 
God is within you " ; and though in the clearest 
manner, and under circumstances the most solemn, 
he had affirmed, " My kingdom is not of this world." 

We are apt to fall into a great mistake, from 
not distinguishing between the feelings and con- 
ceptions, the whole state of character, of an en- 
lightened Christian at the present day, and those 
of the Jews to whom Christ preached. It may 
seem to us as if a few words of his would have 
been sufficient to do away any error, however in- 
veterate, because we think their effect would be 



* Luke xviii. 31 - 34. 
40* 



424 APPENDIX. 

such upon our own minds. We may wonder that 
those words were not uttered. We may almost be 
tempted to ask, Why was a teacher from God so 
sparing of his knowledge, so limited in his instruc- 
tions ? Why did he not deliver his Apostles at 
least from all their mistaken apprehensions having 
any connection with the facts or truths of religion? 
How could he leave the world with so many false 
and pernicious opinions existing around him in full 
vigor, against which he had not declared himself? 
And why, with the same feelings, we might go on 
to ask, do the great truths of religion appear, as 
disclosed by him, in such naked, monumental, se- 
vere grandeur? Why do they stand alone, sepa- 
rated from all truths not essential to our faith ? 
Why were not the many questions answered, the 
many doubts solved, which we might be disposed 
to lay before Christ, or which his disciples, if we 
imagine them as inquiring and as teachable as 
ourselves, might have proposed ? 

To inquiries such as these it has been my pur- 
pose to afford some answer in what has been sug- 
gested. As a teacher from God, it was the proper 
and sole office of Christ to make known to men, 
on the authority of God, the fundamental truths 
of religion. To inculcate these alone was a task 
which demanded all his efforts, his own undivided 
attention, and that of his most willing hearers. 
They were to be kept distinct from all other truths. 
The minds of men were not to be withdrawn from 
them by bringing any other subject into discussion. 
When we ask why Christ did not proceed furthei 



NOTE B. 425 

to enlighten his hearers, we forget how unprepared 
they were for such instruction, what prejudices 
must have been overcome, what wrong associations 
broken, how much of inquiry on their part, and of 
explanation on his, would have been necessary, 
how liable his language was to be misunderstood, 
and how fatal it would have been to the purpose 
of his mission thus to occupy their thoughts upon 
topics unconnected with it. We forget what op- 
position he had to encounter, how all his words 
and actions were watched with malignant eyes, 
how often his enemies came proposing questions 
to try what he would say, that they might find 
opportunity to injure him.* We do not remember, 
that no error could be touched without affording 
some new occasion or pretence of hatred ; and that 
whatever he spoke would be misunderstood, per- 
verted, misrepresented, and made a ground for false 
inferences. We do not keep in mind the imperfect 
apprehensions of his disciples, of which we find 
continual notices in the Gospels, and the utter in- 
docility of the great body of the Jews, which is 
equally apparent. We forget, that, after a min- 
istry of unintermitted effort, he fell a sacrifice to 
the truths which he did teach. In asking why his 
instructions did not extend to other truths, and to 
the correction of errors not essential, we forget how 
difficult was his proper office, we forget by whom 
he was surrounded, we forget the reproach that 
was forced from his lips : " O unbelieving and per- 

* The Common Version says, " to tempt him." 



426 APPENDIX. 

verse race ! how long shall I be with you ? How 
long must I bear with you ? n It was not to men 
so little ready to receive his essential doctrines that 
any unnecessary instruction was to be addressed. 
We mistake altogether the state of the case, when, 
in reading the Gospels, we conceive of Christ as 
teaching with the same freedom of explanation, 
and with the same use of language, with which 
we may perhaps reasonably suppose that he would 
have taught a body of enlightened men, receiving 
his words with the entire deference with which we 
now regard them. 

The wisdom and the self-restraint, for so it is 
to be considered, of our Saviour, in confining his 
teaching to the essential truths of religion, and the 
broad distinction which he thus made between 
these and all other doctrines, appear to me among 
the most striking proofs of the divinity of his mis- 
sion. I cannot believe, that a merely human 
teacher would have conducted himself with such 
perfect wisdom ; that he would never have at- 
tempted to use his authority, or have displayed 
his superior knowledge, in maintaining other truths 
than those which essentially concern the virtue and 
happiness of mankind ; that he would have re- 
frained from exposing or contradicting the errors 
of his opponents on any other subjects ; that he 
would have succeeded in communicating to I113 
disciples those principles which are the foundation 
of all religion and morality, without perplexing 
their minds by the discussion of any topics less 
important ; and, at last, have left his doctrine a 



NOTE B. 427 

monument for all future time, — not like the works 
of some enlightened men, which perish with the 
errors they destroy, but remaining a universal code 
of instruction for mankind. 

But there is another very different point of view, 
under which the subject we have been examining 
affords, I think, proof of the divine origin of Chris- 
tianity. If the Gospels are an authentic account 
of what w r as done and said by Christ, no question 
can remain whether Christ were a teacher from 
God. But that they are so, we have evidence in 
the facts which have been brought to view. 

When we compare the language of Christ re- 
specting his future coming with the expectations 
expressed by his Apostles, we perceive that his 
language was misunderstood by them. He did 
not predict his visible return to earth to be the 
judge of men. There is nothing in his words 
which requires or justifies such an interpretation 
of them. It has appeared, I trust, that the figura- 
tive language which he used is to be understood in 
a very different sense. 

But the Apostles, from various causes, were ex- 
pecting such a return of their Master. Their words 
admit of no probable explanation except as refer- 
ring to this anticipated event. What, then, fol- 
lows as a correct inference from this comparison ? 

It follows, that the words relating to this subject, 
which are ascribed to Christ in the Gospels, were 
truly his words. They were not falsely ascribed 
to him. They were not imagined for him. They 



428 APPENDIX 

were not conformed to the apprehensions of his 
followers. Had his followers fabricated or inten- 
tionally modified the words, they would have made 
their Master say what they themselves have said, 
in language as explicit as their own. 

Here, then, we have evidence of the most unsus- 
picious kind, for it is clearly evidence which it was 
the purpose of no individual to furnish, that cer- 
tain words recorded in the Gospels were uttered 
by Christ. The writers of these books did not in 
this case fabricate language expressive of their own 
opinions, and ascribe it to him. And if they did 
not in this case, concerning a subject on which 
they taught what he did not teach, we have no 
reason to suspect them of having, in any other 
case, intentionally ascribed to him words which he 
did not utter. 

The words, then, ascribed to Christ in the Gos- 
pels are words of Christ. They have been reported 
by well-informed individuals, who had no intention 
of deceiving, and who did not even conform them 
to their own apprehension of their meaning. I will 
not pursue the inferences from these truths. I will 
only observe, that the proof of them, as we have 
seen, is, through the providence of God, bound up 
in the New Testament itself. An error of the 
Apostles proves the reality of their faith. In seek- 
ing to solve a difficulty, we discover unexpected 
evidence of the truth of Christianity. And I am 
persuaded, that, as the New Testament is better 
understood, as the false notions that have prevailed 
concerning it pass away, and it is made a sub 



NOTE B. 429 

ject of enlightened investigation and philosophical 
study, new and irresistible proofs will appear of 
that fact, of which we can hardly estimate the full 
magnitude and interest, that Christ was a teacher 
from God. 

In reference, indeed, to the very subject we have 
been examining, there is another consideration well 
deserving attention. "We have seen what were the 
anticipations of the Apostles concerning the per- 
sonal return of their Master to earth, and the 
approaching termination of the world. But in 
connection with these expectations, a remarkable 
phenomenon presents itself. We might have sup- 
posed, that the imaginations and feelings of the 
Apostles would have been seized upon and in- 
flamed by the prospect of such events ; that they 
would have continually placed them before the 
eyes of those whom they addressed, and have 
urged them upon the thoughts of men ; that their 
exhortations and warnings would always have 
borne the impress of anticipations so extraordinary 
and so exciting. But this is not the case. We 
may read far the greater part of what they have 
left us in writing, without discovering an intima- 
tion that they held such opinions. It is clear, that 
they did not insist upon the facts in question as of 
any considerable moment They introduce the 
mention of them as accessory ideas in connection 
with the doctrine of immortality and retribution. 
Imagine any other body of individuals laboring 
with like earnestness and devotion for the reforma- 



430 APPENDIX. 

tion of their fellow-men, under a similar belief of 
the approaching end of the world ; — imagine what 
would be the feelings and language of such indi- 
viduals, and contrast them with those of the Apos- 
tles, and you may perceive what a singular phe- 
nomenon is presented in the New Testament. 

In what manner is this phenomenon to be ex- 
plained? How is the problem to be solved, that 
men, anticipating the end of the world and the 
final judgment of mankind as at hand, should have 
insisted so little upon these events for the purpose 
of exciting the terrors or the hopes of those whom 
they addressed ? It can be explained, I think, bat 
in one way. The feelings which those expected 
events would naturally have produced were ab- 
sorbed in the deeper, the intenser feeling, produced 
by a thorough conviction of the essential truths of 
religion. To them, who knew themselves the crea- 
tures, the care, the special ministers, of the God of 
Love ; to them, the disciples of his Son, the wit- 
nesses, nay, themselves the very agents, of that 
divine power by which the laws of nature were 
suspended ; to them, before whose view the clouds 
resting upon eternity had been rolled away, — the 
consummation of this world was of little more con- 
cern than the revolution of an empire. Assured of 
immortality, and with everything to give strength 
to the feeling which this assurance is adapted to 
produce, it was of small moment to them or to 
their disciples whether with the dead they should 
be raised incorruptible, or whether with the living 
they should be changed. One all-penetrating sen- 



NOTE B. 431 

timent of the truth of their religion annihilated the 
power of smaller excitements. Their feelings were 
calmed by the contemplation of one absorbing in- 
terest, which no changes could affect. 

How, then, was this conviction of the truth oi 
their religion produced, — this conviction which so 
wrought upon their minds that the anticipated 
consummation and judgment of the world had no 
power strongly to move them ? There is one an 
swer to this question which a Christian will give 
I know of no other. 



NOTE C. 

BY THE EDITOB. 

(See pp. 183-191.) 

VARIOUS READINGS OF CERTAIN PASSAGES SUP- 
POSED TO HAVE A BEARING ON THE DOCTRINE 
OF THE TRINITY. 

Beside the three celebrated passages which have been 
remarked upon by Mr. Norton, — Acts xx. 28, 1 Timo- 
thy iii. 1 6, and 1 John v. 7, 8, — there are others, of more 
or less importance, whose supposed bearing on the doctrine 
of the Trinity is affected by various readings of the original 
text. It is the object of the present note to exhibit all the 
passages of this class that can be regarded as of any conse- 
quence, where a reading different from that followed in the 
Common Version has been adopted in any of the leading 
critical editions of the Greek Testament which have been 
published in the present century. In some instances, the 
reading thus adopted may be thought more favorable to 
the Trinitarian theory than that which before stood in 
the text ; in others, the reverse is the case. 

The examples which are about to be given of various 
readings of the Greek text of the New Testament, in con- 
nection with those which have already been noticed, might 
perhaps lead one imperfectly acquainted with the subject to 
suppose the differences in the original manuscripts to be 
more important than they really are. The number of these 
differences, or various readings, is very large ; but an ex- 
amination of them tends only to confirm our confidence in 



NOTE c. 433 

the essential correctness with which the text of the New 
Testament has been transmitted to us. At least nineteen 
twentieths of them, as Mr. Norton has remarked,* may be 
dismissed at once from consideration, as being so obviously 
errors of transcribers, < r found in so few authorities, that 
no critic would regard them as having any claim to be 
received as genuine. Setting these aside, we shall find 
that about the same proportion of those which remain are 
of no sort of consequence as affecting the sense. A small 
number, however, are of a nature to excite some interest ; 
there are a few passages of considerable length in the 
Received Text whose genuineness is doubtful or more than 
doubtful, as the doxology in the Lord's Prayer, the last 
twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark, and the story of the 
woman taken in adultery. See also, in the critical editions, 
Matthew xxiii. 14; xxvii. So ; Mark vi. 11 ; Luke ix. 55, 
56 ; xvii. 36 ; John v. 3, 4 ; Acts viii. 37 ; ix. 5, 6 ; and xxiv. 
6-8. But it may be safely said, that the various read- 
ings do not appreciably affect the evidence of any theo- 
logical doctrine except the doctrine of the Trinity; and 
with respect to this, their importance has often been exag- 
gerated. Still, in studying the Scriptures to ascertain what 
they teach, the first thing to be settled is, what is Scripture. 
If words which purport to be a part of Scripture, in the 
copies which are in common use, are spurious, or doubtful, 
the lover of truth will wish to know it ; and the greater his 
reverence for Scripture, the more desirous will he be not to 
confound the mistakes of transcribers with the words of 
Evangelists and Apostles. 

The place of true reverence for Scripture has, however, 

* Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. I., Addi* 
tional Note A, Sect. III., " On the Character and Importance of the 
Various Headings of the New Testament," p. xxxviii. The sub- 
stance of this Section is reprinted in Mr. Norton's Notes on the Gos- 
pels, Preliminary Note I. 



434 APPENDIX. 

too often been usurped by a blind and superstitious re? 
erence for what has been called the " Received Text." It 
will be proper, therefore, before entering on the principal 
subject of this note, to state some facts in regard to the his- 
tory of the printed Greek text of the New Testament. 

The earliest printed edition of the Greek Testament was 
that contained in the fifth volume of the Complutensian 
Polyglot. The printing of this volume, it appears, was 
completed in 1514; but it was not published till 1522. 
The manuscripts which were used for it have never been 
identified, though the story of .their having been sold to a 
rocket-maker is now exploded ; * and there has been much 
controversy respecting their value. The editors speak of 
them as " very ancient and correct " ; but there is reason 
for questioning their competency to determine the fact. 
The art of criticism was then in its infancy ; such works as 
Montfaucon's Paloeographia Grceca did not exist ; and, as 
Bentley says, "it is not everybody knows the age of a 
manuscript." It is remarked by Bishop Marsh, that the 
text which they have given almost invariably agrees with 
that of the modern Greek manuscripts, — such as were 
written in the thirteenth century or later, — where these 
differ from the most ancient, and from the quotations of the 
early Greek Fathers. " There cannot be a doubt, there- 
fore," he says, " that the Complutensian text was formed 
from modern manuscripts alone." f Wetstein had before 
come to the same conclusion. J 

The first published edition of the Greek Testament was 

* See an article by Dr. James Thomson, first published in the 
Biblical Review for March 1847, and afterwards reprinted in Tre- 
gelles's " Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament," 
pp. 12-18. 

t Lectures, &c., p. 96. 

X Nov. Test. Graec. (Prolegom.), Tom. I. p 118. 



NOTE c. 435 

printed at Basle in 1516, under the editorial care of Eras- 
mus. The Greek text was accompanied by a revised Latin 
version, and a large body of annotations. Though some 
preparation had been made for the work, much of it was un- 
finished when the printing was commenced ; * Erasmus was 
carrying through the press at the same time an edition of 
the works of St. Jerome, and a new edition of his Adagia ; 
yet the whole volume, containing nearly one thousand folio 
pages, was printed in less than six months ! Prcecipitatum 
fuit verius quam editum, u it was driven headlong through 
the press rather than edited," as Erasmus himself says in 
one of his letters.f The cause of this excessive haste was 
the fear of the publisher, Froben, that his edition would be 
anticipated by the Complutensian. Only four or five manu- 
scripts were used, all of them modern, and, with one ex- 
ception, of very little value. A second and more correct 
edition was published by Erasmus in 1519, and a third in 
1522. According to Mill, the second edition differs from 
the first in about four hundred places, and the third from 
the second in one hundred and eighteen. The text of Eras- 
mus was worst in the Apocalypse, of which he had but a 
single manuscript, and that mutilated, wanting the last six 
verses of the book. This deficiency he supplied as well as 
he could by retranslating from the Latin Vulgate into 
Greek. In his fourth edition, which appeared in 1527, he 
altered the text of the Apocalypse in about ninety places 
on the authority of the Complutensian Polyglot, but made 
few other changes. His fifth edition, published in 1535, 
varies scarcely at all from the fourth. Compared with the 
first, its text would seem, according to the account of Mill, 
to have been altered in about six hundred places. Of these 

■* " Conficiebatur [Conjiciebantur is a misprint] simul et excude- 
batur opus " — Erasmi Epist. CCLI. (Budseo.) Opp. III. col. 250 
t Epist CCLXXIV. (Pirckheimero.) Opp. III. col. 2&S. 
41* 



436 APPENDIX. 

changes, in the judgment of the same ciitic, more than one 
hundred were not improvements. 

The principal editions of the Greek Testament published 
in the sixteenth century subsequently to the fifth of Eras* 
mus, were those of Robert Stephens and Beza. Among 
the various editions of Stephens, the third, printed at Paris 
in 1550, is the most celebrated, and the most important in 
its influence on others which succeeded it. Fifteen manu- 
scripts and the Complutensian edition were collated for it, 
the various readings being noted in the margin. It was 
the first edition which contained a critical apparatus of this 
kind. The manuscripts collated, however, were used very 
little, if at all, for the improvement of the text. As Tre- 
gelles remarks, "the various readings seem rather to be 
appended as an ornament? the text, in reality, differing but 
slightly from the fifth edition of Erasmus, except in the 
Apocalypse, where the Complutensian was chiefly followed. 
The splendor of its typography, and the display of various 
readings, appear, however, to have given this edition a repu- 
tation to which it had no title from intrinsic merit. Its 
credit among Protestants was also doubtless enhanced by 
the fact that Stephens, who had been much harassed by the 
bigoted doctors of the Sorbonne, withdrew to Geneva soon 
after its publication, and announced himself a convert to the 
doctrines of the Reformation. 

Beza, who published five editions of the Greek Testa- 
ment, accompanied with a Latin version and notes, in 1565, 
157G, 1582, 1589, and 1598, had some highly valuable 
manuscripts. But he made very little use of them. He 
mostly followed the text of Stephens's third edition, and 
where he differed from it often altered it for the worse, 
sometimes introducing readings on mere conjecture, and 
frequently on very slight authority. In his version and 
notes he has in many instances followed readings different 
from those which he has retained in the Greek text 



NOTE c. 437 

The common English version of thr> Bible, made by 
order of King James, was first published in 1611. The 
Greek text followed by the translators seems to accord 
more nearly with that of Beza's fifth edition (1598) than 
with any other. It agrees with Beza in opposition to the 
third edition of Robert Stephens in about eighty places; 
with Stephens in opposition to Beza, in about half that 
number; and in about a dozen instances it differs from 
both.* Most of these variations are very trivial. 

We come now to the edition of the Greek Testament 
published by the Elzevirs at Leyden in 1624. This was 
based on the third edition of Stephens, a few readings, 
however, being derived from other sources, particularly 
from Beza. It differs from Stephens in only about one 
hundred and seventy places, the variations being, for the 
most part, quite insignificant, many of them, indeed, such as 
cannot be expressed in a translation. Meeting with favor 
on account of its neatness, its convenient form, and the high 
reputation of the Elzevir press for typographical accuracy, 
it was reprinted in 1633 with a preface in which the pub- 
lishers assure the reader that he has " a text which is now 
received by all," — " Textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus 
reception" This assertion, if not strictly true when it was 
made, soon became so, substantially ; and the Elzevir text, 
formed by an unknown editor in the infancy of biblical criti- 
cism, was in almost universal use on the continent of Eu- 
rope till near the beginning of the present century. It is 
this which is generally referred to as the " Textus Recep 
tus " or " Received Text." It does not differ materially 
from the text followed in the common English version of 
the New Testament. 

* Many of these passages are referred to in the lists given by 
Scrivener, in his " Supplement to the Authorised English Version 
of the New Testament/' Vol. I. pp. 7, 8 ; but his enumeration is far 
from complete. 



438 APPENDIX. 

In Great Britain the current text has varied a little 
from the Elzevir, being essentially that of the tliir'J edition 
of Robert Stephens, — "the Vulgate of the Frctestant 
Pope Stephens," as Bentley called it, his text having be- 
come a sort of standard among Protestants, like the Clemen- 
tine edition of the Vulgate among Roman Catholics. Ste- 
phens's text was adopted in Walton's Polyglot, 1657, and 
was reprinted by Mill in 1707, with a few slight, uninten- 
tional variations, as the basis of his laborious collection of 
various readings from manuscripts, ancient versions, and 
Fathers, designed to serve as materials for a critical edition 
of the Greek Testament. Mill expresses his opinion of 
many of the various readings in his Prolegomena and 
Notes, and frequently condemns those adopted by Stephens ; 
but he did not pretend to give a recension of the text. His 
reprint of Stephens, however, which has generally been 
copied in the editions of the Greek Testament published in 
England, has often been termed " Mill's text," as if it had 
the sanction of his critical judgment. This is the text which, 
now in the middle of the nineteenth century, the Ameri- 
can Bible Union has adopted as the basis of its proposed 
revision of King James's version of the New Testament. 

From the statements which have been made, it will be 
seen that the Received Text resolves itself, substantially, 
into that of the fifth edition of Erasmus ; a scholar indeed, 
worthy of the highest respect and admiration, but who 
edited the Greek Testament, to use the language of Gries- 
bach, " as he could, from a very few manuscripts and those 
quite modern, with no other helps except the Latin Vulgate 
in an interpolated state, and the writings of a few inaccu- 
rately edited Fathers." * 

Since the time when the Received Text was formed, a 
" Prolegorn. in N. T., Sect I. p. xxxvii., ed. Schulz, 



NOTE C. 439 

vast amount of critical materials has been made available 
tor its improvement. The great collection of various read- 
ings by Mill, published near the beginning of the last cen- 
tury, — the work of thirty years, — has already been re- 
ferred to. This collection was much enlarged by Bcngel 
and Wetstein. Toward the close of the last century it was 
again more than doubled in amount by the labors of Gries- 
bach, Matthasi, Alter, and Birch. In the present century, 
Scholz, in his Biblisch-kritische Beise, or u Travels for the 
Purpose of Biblical Criticism," and in his edition of the 
Greek Testament, has given an account of more than three 
hundred manuscripts never before examined for critical 
purposes ; but a great majority of them are comparatively 
recent, and his collations were very cursory and inaccurate. 
The indefatigable and far better directed labors of Tischen- 
dorf and Tregelles have afforded us, for the first time, an 
exact knowledge of many very ancient and important docu- 
ments, which had before been but imperfectly collated. I 
pass over numerous minor contributions to our stock of 
critical materials. The result of the whole is, that the 
most ancient manuscripts — those written in uncial or capi- 
tal letters — have now been thoroughly collated, and all 
the more important of them accurately transcribed and pub- 
lished, with the exception of the celebrated Vatican manu- 
script; and more than eight hundred of the later manu- 
scripts containing the whole or parts of the New Testament 
have been examined in a greater or less degree, some of 
them thoroughly, but most of them very cursorily. The 
ancient versions, and numerous quotations from the New 
Testament in the writings of the Christian Fathers, have also 
been compared with the common text. There is still room 
for useful labor in the collation of the more important cur- 
sive manuscripts; there is need of more accurate editions and 
of a more careful examination of several of the ancient ver- 



440 APPENDIX. 

sions ; and much remains to be done in enlarging, correct- 
ing, and sifting the critical materials which have been col- 
lected from the writings of the Fathers. But it is safe to 
say, that the means which we have at our command for 
accurately editing the Greek New Testament very far 
exceed those which we possess in the case of any ancient 
heathen writer whose works have come down to us. 

Though important materials for the correction of the 
Received Text had been long accumulating, it was not till 
near the close of the last century that they were much 
used. The first who turned them to proper account was 
Griesbach, whose edition of the Greek Testament, pub- 
lished in 1775-77, marks an era in biblical criticism* 
His second and principal edition, in which the critical ap- 
paratus was greatly enlarged, was published at Halle and 
London in 1796-1806; a manual edition appeared at 
Leipsic in 1805. Though the second volume of his larger 
edition bears the date 1806, it was mostly printed several 
years before, so that the manual edition generally repre- 
sents his later judgment. 

The leading editions of the Greek Testament which have 
been published in the present century are those of Gries- 
bach, Matthaei, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, to 
which may perhaps be added that of Alford, though the 
last has not, like the others which have been named, added 
anything to our critical materials. Griesbach's has already 
been noticed; Matthaei's was published at Wittenberg, Hof, 
and Ronneburg, in 1803 - 7, 3 vols. 8vo ; Scholz's at 
Leipsic, in 1830-36, 2 vols. 4to; and Lachmann's larger 
edition at Berlin, in 1842-50, 2 vols. 8vo. Tischendorf s 
second Leipsic edition appeared in 1849, 8vo, and the 
second edition of Alford's Greek Testament, Vols. I. and 
II. (ending with the Second Epistle to the Corinthians), 
was published at London in 1854-55. (First edition, 
1849 - 52.) The third volume has not yet been issued. 



NOTE C. 441 

To give a comparative estimate of the value of these 
editions, and to point out in detail their distinguishing 
characteristics, cannot here be attempted. The eminent 
merits of Griesbach are too well known to need particular 
remark. Of the other editions which have been men- 
tioned, Lachmann's and Tischendorf 's have at present the 
highest reputation, among those qualified to pronounce on 
such matters, both on the Continent and in Great Britain ; 
while the critical judgment of Matthsei and of Scholz is 
little esteemed. — Matthaei's edition of 1803-7, and his 
earlier one published at Riga in 1782-88, 12 vols. 8vo, 
contain some useful materials; but his violent prejudices 
unfitted him for the office of a critic. — The value of 
Scholz's labors is greatly diminished by his want of accu- 
racy as well as of judgment. — Lachmann's edition is 
founded on very ancient authorities, but too limited in 
number, and, in the case of some important manuscripts, 
not thoroughly collated. Discarding internal and collat- 
eral evidence, he adopts the reading best supported by his 
few select authorities, even when he does not regard it as 
genuine. His text is followed in the recent works of Stan- 
ley and Jowett on the Epistles of St. Paul. — The second 
Leipsic edition of Tischendorf, taken as a whole, is unques- 
tionably the most important and valuable critical edition of 
the Greek Testament which has appeared since the time of 
Griesbach. Less cautious than Griesbach, he is some- 
times liable to the charge of adopting readings unsupported 
by sufficient authority; but Alford pronounces his text 
"very far superior to any which have preceded it."* — 

* Greek Testament, Vol. I. Prolegomena, p. 77, 2d ed. — Some 
account of Tischendorf and his lahors may be found in the Biblio- 
theca Sacra for July 1852, Vol. IX. pp. 623-628. The first fasci- 
culus of a new and apparently much enlarged edition of Tischen- 
dorf *s Greek Testament has very lately been published at Leipsic. 



442 APPENDIX. 

Alford, in the first edition of the first volume of his Greuk 
Testament, containing the Gospels, professedly gave only 
u a provisional text/' one, he says, " which may be regarded 
as an experiment how far the public mind in England may 
be disposed to receive even the first and plainest results of 
the now advanced state of textual criticism." * The suc- 
cess of the experiment seems to have been encouraging 
for in the second volume of his work, and in a new edi- 
tion of the first, he has ventured to give the text according 
to his judgment of the evidence. He does not appear to 
be a critic of the highest order, but his judgment is better 
than might be supposed from the manner in which he com- 
menced his editorial labors. There is no hazard in saying, 
that, so far as the criticism of the text is concerned, his edi- 
tion is much the best which has yet been published in Eng- 
land. — Meyer has given a critical discussion of the various 
readings, in his Commentary on the New Testament, ex- 
tending to the First Epistle to the Thessalonians (not in- 
clusive), the notes on the remaining books, excepting the 
Epistle to Philemon and the Apocalypse, being prepared by 
his coadjutors Lunemann and Huther. Many of his re- 
marks are acute and valuable. His " Kommentar, ,, so far as 
it goes, is one of the best helps which we possess in the criti- 
cal study of the text of the New Testament, to say nothing 
of its exegetical merits. — The long-delayed edition of Dr. 
S. P. Tregelles promises, when published, to be a work of 
great interest and value. In his " Book of Revelation in 
Greek, edited from Ancient Authorities ; with a new Eng- 
lish Version," &c. (London, 1844), and his "Account of 
the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament" (London, 
1854), as well as in various articles in Kitto's Journal of 
Sacred Literature, Dr. Tregelles has shown himself to be 
a truly conscientious, independent, and intelligent critic 

* Prolegomena, p. 70, 1st ed 



NOTE c. 443 

His untiring zeal and industry in the accurate collation of 
the most important ancient manuscripts of the New Testa- 
ment entitle him to the gratitude of all who desire to pos- 
sess a pure text of the records of our religion. But this is 
not the place to give even a slight sketch of his arduous 
and disinterested labors. 

Other editions of the Greek Testament of secondary im- 
portance which have been examined for the purposes of 
this note, it may be sufficient, with one exception, simply 
to mention ; as Knapp's, 4th ed., Halle, 1829 (first ed. 
1797) ; Schott's, 3d ed., Leipsic, 1825 (first ed. 1805) ; 
Tittmann's, 2d stereotype ed., Leipsic, 1828 (first ed. 
1820); Vater's, Halle, 1824; Hahn's, Leipsic, 1840,— 
American ed. by Dr. Robinson, New York, 1842; and 
Theile's, stereotype ed., Leipsic, 1844 (4th ed. 1852). 
None of these calls for special remark, except that of 
Hahn, which, having been reprinted in this country under 
the superintendence of so distinguished a scholar as Dr. 
Robinson, and introduced to the American public with 
high commendation by Professor Stuart,* requires a notice 
which its intrinsic importance would not justify. 

Hahn professes to give, in his notes, a view of all the 
readings approved by Griesbach, Knapp, and Scholz,f 
with a selection from those adopted by Lachmann in his 
first edition, published in 1831. Now it will hardly be 
pretended that a critical editor " approves " those readings 
which he has marked as probably spurious. Griesbach has 
so marked words of the Received Text in about four hun- 
dred and ninety instances. But Hahn takes no notice of 
this, leaving his readers to suppose that Griesbach, in all 

* See the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1843, p. 274, et seqq. 

t * : xta ut, qui nostra editione usuri essent, sine ulla diffieultate 
omnes leetiones cognoscere possent, quas editores illi s'uo judicio pro- 
barunt." — Prsefat., pp. viii., ix., ed. Amer. 
42 



444 APPENDIX. 

these cases, received the words as genuine. — Again, there 
are many readings which Griesbach and Knapp have 
marked as equal in point of authority with those retained 
in the text. Knapp, for example, has so marked the read- 
ing Kvpiov in Acts xx. 28, and ot in 1 Timothy iii. 16. Such 
readings are to be regarded as " approved " by these crit- 
ics, as much as those which they have allowed to remain 
in the text in their stead. But Hahn affords those who 
use his edition no intimation of their judgment respecting 
them. His edition, therefore, to say the least, very imper- 
fectly represents the opinions of Griesbach and Knapp 
concerning the various readings. — But, passing over the 
defects which have been referred to, we shall find that his 
work often gives erroneously what it professes to exhibit. 
I have noted more than one hundred and thirty instances in 
which the critical judgment of Knapp alone is incorrectly 
represented. Taking the Gospel of Matthew, for example, 
in twenty-two instances Knapp is said to regard a read- 
ing as doubtful merely,* when, by inclosing it in double 
brackets, he has marked it as unquestionably spurious ; f in 
two instances the double brackets of Knapp are disregard- 
ed ; % and in three other places in this Gospel, the single 
brackets of Knapp, indicating that he considered certain 
words as doubtful, are passed over without remark. § In 
Matthew viii. 29 the word 'i^o-oO, which stands in the Re- 
ceived Text, is omitted without mention of the fact in the 
notes. The different opinions of Griesbach, Knapp, Lach- 
mann, and Scholz respecting it are of course not stated. In 

* Matthew iv. 18 ; v. 27 ; vi. 13, 18 ; viii. 25, 32 ; ix. 13, 35 ; xii. 
35 ; xiv. 22, bis, 25 ; xvi. 8 ; xx. 6, 22, 23 ; xxiii. 8 ; xxv. 13, 31 ; 
xxvi. 9 ; xxvii. 35, 64. 

t " His [uncis duplicatis] ea notantur, quae sine dubio spuria esse 
censebam." — Knapp, Comment. Isagog. p xxviii 

t Matthew xviii. 35 ; xxviii. 20 

k Matthew iv. 12 ; viii. 29; xxi. 12 



NOTE c. 445 

Matthew xxviii. 20, Hahn leaves his readers to suppose, 
erroneously, that 'A/itJi/ is retained as genuine by Griesbach 
and Knapp, as it is by Scholz. In further illustration of 
the character of Halm's edition, I will only refer to his 
treatment of the passage relating to the woman taken in 
adultery, John vii. 53-viii. 11. To this Griesbach pre- 
fixes a peculiar mark, indicating that its spuriousness is in 
the highest degree probable ; Knapp has bracketed it, and 
in the Introduction to his Greek Testament (p. xxix.) ex- 
presses his belief that it does not belong to the Gospel of 
John ; and Lachmann has rejected it from the text. Hahn 
not only retains it, but gives no hint that any of the editors 
who have been named had a doubt of its genuineness. 

One general remark should here be made respecting the 
editions of Tittmann, Hahn, and Theile. These critics 
professedly retain the readings of the Received Text, unless 
the evidence against them, in their judgment, greatly pre- 
ponderates. It is only when the case is very clear, that 
they venture to make a change.* Their authority, there- 
fore, whatever it may be, is obviously of much less weight 
when they support the readings of the Received Text, than 
when they reject them. 

We may now proceed to the examination of the passages 
which form the principal subject of this note. It is to be 
understood that the editions which have been mentioned 
as published within the present century retain the read- 
ing of the Received Text unless the contrary is expressly 
stated. 

(1.) Matthew xix. 17. "Why callest thou me good? 

*" gee, for instance, Theile's Preface, p. vii. : — " Ubi vero in utram- 
que partem disputari posset, si vel argumenta mutationem suadenti* 
ycevalerent, lectionem intactani relinquere maluimus. M 



t46 APPENDIX. 

There is none good but one, that is, God." Ti fi€ Xeyen 
ayaOov ; Ovdels dyaSos, et pi) eis, 6 Qeos* 

Here the following reading is adopted by Griesbach, 
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, and Tregelles, as 
also by De Wette, Porter, and Davidson, and is marked by 
Knapp and Vater as equal in point of authority to that of 
the Received Text: — Ti p* epcoTas irepi rov dyaBuv ; Els 
iariv 6 dya66s. " Why askest thou me concerning what is 
good ? One only is good." Most of the critics who re- 
ceive this reading as genuine omit the word " good " as an 
epithet of " teacher " in the preceding verse. 

In the parallel passages (Mark x. 17, 18, Luke xviii. 
18, 19) which correspond with the Received Text in Mat- 
thew, there are no various readings of any consequence ; 
but this fact favors the supposition that transcribers altered 
(as they thought, corrected} the text of Matthew to make 
it conform to that of Mark and Luke. 

(2.) Luke xxii. 43, 44. " And there appeared an angel 
unto him from heaven, strengthening him," &c. 

These two verses are bracketed by Lachmann as doubt- 
ful, and are rejected by Granville Penn in his " Book of 
the New Covenant." But they are retained by all the 
other critical editors. Mr. Norton has given his reasons 
for regarding them as spurious in his Evidences of the 
Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. I., Additional Note A, 
Section V. VI, pp. lxxxvii. - xci. 

(3.) Luke xxiv. 52. " And they worshipped him, and 
returned to Jerusalem with great joy." Kal alro'i, Tzpoa-Kwr)- 
o-ain-cs caro'i/, v7reo-Tp€\jfav, k. t. A. Here the words irpoo-Kvvr)- 
<rai>T€s civtov, corresponding to " worshipped him and " in 
the translation, are rejected by Tischendorf. But his au- 
thorities seem altogether insufficient. The omission of the 



NOTE c. 447 

words in the Cambridge manuscript (D), the only Greek 
manuscript in which they are known to be wanting, and in 
the manuscript or manuscripts from which the Old Latin 
version was made, was very probably accidental, the tran- 
scriber, as Alford suggests, passing over them in conse- 
quence of the resemblance of AYTON to the preceding 
AYTOI. 

This passage has been quoted by Trinitarians as a proof 
that Christ was worshipped by his disciples as the Supreme 
Being. But, as every one acquainted with the original 
language knows, the word here translated " worshipped " 
simply denotes " to pay reverence or homage by kneeling 
or prostration," without defining the kind of reverence. It 
is perpetually used in the Septuagint as the translation of 
the Hebrew word rendered in the Common Version by " to 
bow T down before," " to do obeisance to," and the like. See, 
for example, Genesis xxvii. 29 ; xxxvii. 7, 9, 10 ; xlix. 8 : 
Exodus xviii. 7, &c. See also its use in Matthew xviii. 
26 ; Rev. iii. 9. Dr. Robinson, in his excellent Lexicon of 
the New Testament, art. npoa-KwecD^ no. 1, explains it in 
this general sense, and not as denoting divine worship, in 
all the passages in which it occurs in the Gospels in refer- 
ence to Christ, including the present.* Here, the words 
irpoo-Kwrjo-airres clvtov probably express the fact that the 
disciples, as they beheld our Lord taken up from them 
into heaven, knelt down, or prostrated themselves on the 
ground before him, in reverence.! Mr. Norton, however, 

* Tbase passages are the following : — Matthew ii. 2, 8, 11 ; viii. 2 ; 
ix. 18 , xiv. 33 ; xv. 25 ; xx. 20 ; xxviii. 9, 17 ; Mark v. 6 ; xv. 19 ; 
Luke xxiv. 52 ; John ix. 38. The only other passage in the Ne\f 
Testament in which the word occurs in reference to Christ is in the 
Epistle to the Hehrews (i. 6), where it is used of the reverence and 
homage which the angels are commanded by God to pay to his Son, 
us their superior. 

t " ' Having worshipped him,' TrpocKwrfovr^s atroV> that is, * hav« 
42* 



44^ APPENDIX. 

so far as can be m ndged from bis translation,* seems to have 
understood tbem as denoting merely the feeling of reverence 
which filled the hearts of the disciples as they returned to 
Jerusalem after witnessing the ascension of their Master. 
But is not the use of the aorist participle an objection to 
this view ? 

It may be remarked that the word worship, both as a 
noun and a verb, was used in a much wider sense at the 
time when King James's version of the Bible was made, 
than it is at the present day. Examples are abundant in 
Shakespeare and other writers of that period. So in the 
marriage service of the English Episcopal Church: "With 
my body I thee worship" In Luke xiv. 10, "Then shall 
thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat 
with thee," the noun "worship" is a translation of the 
Greek word doga, glory, honor. 

(4.) John i. 18. " No man hath seen God at any time; 
the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, 

he hath declared him." 9e6i> ovbeh £a>pa.K€ 7rd)7roT€ • 6 /xovo- 
yevrjs vlos, 6 ojv els rbv KoXnov tov irarpos, efcelvos e^rjyrjaraTO. 

Here, instead of 6 fiopoyevrjs vl6s< " the only -begotten Son" 
we find in some important authorities the reading 6 povoye- 
vtjs Geoff, "the only-begotten God" This strange reading 
(for so it will seem to most Trinitarians as well as to oth- 
ers) has not yet been adopted in any edition of the Greek 
Testament ; but it deserves notice, since it is defended by 
a critic so worthy of respect as Dr. Tregelles. Michaelis 
also appears disposed to regard it as the original reading ; | 

ing thrown themselves prostrate before him,' as the words strictly 
interpreted imply.'* — Campbell in loc. See also Meyer's note. 

* " And they, worshipping him, returned to Jerusalem with great 
joy." 

t Introduction to the New Testament, Chap. X. Se'.. 2. Vol. II 
>. 393, 2d ed. 



NOTE c. 449 

and Lachmann, as Dr. Tregelles assures us, would un- 
doubtedly have received it into his text, had he known all 
the authorities by which it is supported. 

The evidence of manuscripts and versions for and against 
the reading in question may first be stated. The testimony 
of the Fathers will require a particular discussion. It 
should be premised that the words vlos (Son) and Oeds 
(God), in the abbreviated form in which they are written 
in the most ancient manuscripts (YC, ©c), differ in but a 
single letter, so that one might easily be substituted for the 
other through the inadvertence of a transcriber. 

The reading Geo?, then, is found in the manuscripts B 
C* L, 33 ; that is, in the Vatican manuscript, of about the 
middle of the fourth century, in the Ephrem manuscript 
(a prima manu), probably written before the middle of the 
fifth, in another highly valuable manuscript of the eighth 
century, remarkable for its general agreement with the 
Vatican, and in a manuscript of the eleventh century, writ- 
ten in cursive letters, but preserving a very ancient text. 
As to versions, it is supported by the Peshito Syriac, as 
hitherto edited, the Coptic, the iEthiopic, and the margin 
of the Philoxenian or Harclean Syriac. 

On the other hand, the reading vlos is that of the Alex- 
andrine manuscript (A), probably written not long after 
the middle of the fifth century, and of the manuscripts 
X and A, written in the ninth century, but often agreeing 
with the most ancient documents, in opposition to the later. 
It is also found in the other uncial manuscripts E F G 
H K M S U V, ranging from the middle of the eighth 
century to the tenth, and in several hundred manuscripts 
in cursive letters, mostly later than the tenth century, but 
some of them of much value from their usual accordance 
with the best authorities. The ancient versions which ex- 
hibit it are the Old Latin or Italic, the Vulgate, the Cure- 



450 APPENDIX. 

tonian Syriac,* the Philoxenian Syriac (in the text), the 
Jerusalem Syriac, and the Armenian. 

So far as the evidence has yet been stated, it will proba- 
bly be admitted that the common reading is best supported. 
But it is on the testimony of the Fathers that the advocates 
for the reading Geos appear chiefly to rely. The following 
is the account given by Dr. Tregelles of this branch of the 
evidence. 

" As to fathers," he says, " the reading [e*os] may almost 
be called general, for it is that of Clement of Alexandria, 
Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Lucian, Basil, 
Gregory of Nazianzum, Gregory of Nussa, Didymus, Basil 
of Seleucia, Isidore of Pelusium, Cyril of Alexandria, Titus 
of Bostra ; as also of Theodotus (in the second century), 
Arius, Marcellus, Eunomius, etc. ; and amongst the Latins, 
Hilary, Fulgentius, Gaudentius, Ferrandus, Phoebadius, 
Vigilius, Alcuin, etc." The reading vlos " is found twice 
in Origen, in Eusebius, Basil, and Irenaeus (though all 
these writers have also the other reading, and in general 
they so speak of Geos in the passage, that vlos must have 
proceeded from the copyists) : — the Latin writers in gen- 
eral agree with the Latin versions in reading jilius 

Qeos, as the more difficult reading, is entitled to especial 
attention ; and, confirmed as it is by MSS. of the highest 
character, by good versions, and by the general consent of 
early Greek writers (even when, like Arius, they were 
opposed to the dogma taught), it is necessary, on grounds 

* This name has been given to a very ancient and valuable Syriac 
copy of part of the Gospels, — one of the Nitrian manuscripts re- 
cently added to the British Museum, — which is soon to be published 
(if it has not been already) by the Rev. William Curcton. It is 
" a version," as Tregelles remarks, " far more worthy the epithet ot 
1 venerable ' than that which is called the Peshito as it has come down 
to us." ("Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testa- 
ment," p. 137 ; comp. pp. 160, 161.) 



NOTE C. 451 

of combined evidence, to receive it in preference to the 
easier and more natural reading vlos." * 

This array of authorities is certainly imposing ; and the 
argument would be forcible, perhaps conclusive, were it 
not that the facts in the case have been greatly misappre- 
hended. Tregelles appears, like Griesbach, Scholz, Tesch- 
endorf, and Alford, to have relied on Wetstein, whose gen- 
eral accuracy might well inspire confidence. But Wetstein, 
in his note on this passage, has fallen into extraordinary 
errors, many of which have been copied, without investi- 
gation, by the critics who have just been named. One 
who should take the statements in Wetstein's note to be 
correct, would suppose that not less than forty-four Greek 
and Latin writers, in the first eight centuries, have quoted 
the passage in question with the reading fiovoycvrj? Geos or 
unigenitus Deus ; and that the number of distinct quota- 
tions of this kind in their writings, taken together, is not far 
from one hundred and thirty, I have examined, with some 
care, all the passages specifically referred to by Wetstein, 
and the whole work, or collection of works cited, when his 
reference is general, — as " Epiphanius duodecies," u Hila- 
rius de Trinit. passim," " Fidgentius plusquam vicies," — 
not confining my attention, however, to these particular 
passages or works. The following is the result of this 
examination. Of the forty-four writers cited by Wetstein 
in support of the reading fiovoycvrjs Geo?, there are but four 
who quote or refer to the passage with this reading only ; f 
four quote it with both readings ; J nine quote it with the 
reading vlos or filius only, except that in one of the quo- 

* "Account of the Printed Text," &c, pp. 234, 235. 

t It is thus quoted in the " Excerpta Thcodoti," and also by 
Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius. It appears to be onoa 
referred to in the Epistle of the second Synod of Ancyra. 

t Irenaeus, Origen, Basil, and Cyril of Alexandria. 



152 APPENDIX. 

tations of Titus of Bostra vlos Ocos occurs ; * two repeat- 
edly allude to it, — sometimes using the phrase " only- 
begotten God" and sometimes "only-begotten Son" in con- 
nection with the words " who is in the bosom of the Fa- 
ther," — but do not distinctly quote it; f and twenty-jive do 
not quote or allude to it at all. { Of the particular pas 
sages referred to by Wetstein, a great majority have no 
bearing whatever on the subject, but merely contain the 
expression fxovoyevfjs Geo? or unigenitus Deus, with no trace 
of an allusion to the text in question, — an expression often 
occurring, as will hereafter appear, in writers who abun- 
dantly and unequivocally quote John i. 18 with the reading 
vlos or Jilius. Indeed, in some of these passages we do not 
find even this expression, but only the term ycvrjTos 8ew, or 
genitus Deus, applied to Christ. § Sufficient evidence that 
these assertions are not made at random will be given in 
what follows, though the mistakes of Wetstein cannot here 
be all pointed out in detail. 

We may now examine the witnesses brought forward by 
Dr. Tregelles. Very few of these will stand cross-ques- 
tioning. Of the twenty-Jive writers whom he has adduced 
in support of the reading povoycvr)? Geos, but Jour, I be- 
lieve, can be relied on with much confidence, and even 
their testimony is far from unexceptionable ; three may be 
regarded as doubtful; eight really support the common 

* Eusebius, Athanasius, Julian, Gregory Nazianzen, Titus of Bos- 
tra, Maximinus the Arian bishop, Hilary, Vigilius of Tapsa, Alcuin. 

t Gregory of Nyssa and Fulgentius. 

X That is, all the remaining authorities cited by Wetstein, for 
which see his note. 

§ As in the following: — " Origenes in Psalm i. ap. Epiphanium,' 
see Epiphan. Hseres. LXIV. c. 7, Opp. I. 5.31, B, or Origen. Opp. II. 
526, E ; — " Eusebius D. IV. 2," i. e. Dem. Evang. Lib. IV. c. 2 ; — 
" Prudentius in Apotheosi," viz. line 895 ; — a Claudianus Mamert. de 
statu animse 1. 2," where Lib. I. c. 2 must be the place infended. 



NOTE c. 453 

reading ; two merely allude to the passage ; and eight have 
neither quoted nor alluded to it. 

These statements of course require proof. This will 
now be presented, so far as it can be within reasonable 
limits. Though few passages can be quoted at length, 
pains will be taken to give very full and precise references 
to the authorities relied on. In producing the testimony of 
the Fathers, the time at which they flourished is indicated 
in marks of parenthesis after their names. In assigning 
these dates, either Cave or Lardner has generally been 
followed. 

Clement of Alexandria (A. D. 194) has once quoted 
John i. 18 with the reading 6eos;* but this evidence is 
somewhat weakened by the fact that in another place, in 
alluding to this text, he has the words fiovoycvrjs vios Qeos.f 
Another authority for this reading is the work which bears 
the title " Extracts from Theodotus, and Heads of the Ori- 
ental Doctrine, so called, as it existed in the Time of Valen- 
tinus." It is sometimes quoted under the name of Doctrina 
Orientalis. This compilation is supposed by many to have 
been made by Clement of Alexandria, with whose works it 
is generally printed. " Theodotus " is several times cited 
in it, but more frequently " the followers of Valentinus," a 
famous Gnostic who flourished about A. D. 140. The 
passage which contains the quotation of John i. 18 with the 
reading 6 fiovoyevrjs Qeos is introduced by the words " the 
Valentinians say." X Didymus of Alexandria (A. D. 370) 
has this reading twice ; § and it occurs twice in the writings 

* Stromat. Lib. V. c. 12. p. 695, ed. Potter. 

!" Tore €7T07TT€V(T€is tov koXttov tov 7rar/3os, ov 6 ji.ovoy€vr)S vlbs 
Qeos povos i£r)yr](jaTo. — Quis dives salvetur, c 38. p. 956. 

% Doctrina Orient, c. 6, apud Clem. Alex. Opp. p. 968, ed. Pott.; 
also in Fabrieii Bibl. Graec. Vol. V. p. 136, and in Bunsen's Ana- 
lecta Ante-Nicaena, Vol. I. p. 211. 

i De Trinitate, Lib. I. p. 69, and Lib. II. p. 140, ed. Mingarel. Not 



454 APPENDIX. 

of Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus (A. D. 368).* 
In another place, Epiphanius speaks of John as " calling 
Christ only-begotten God."f The reading Geos also re- 
ceives some support from a passage in the Epistle of the 
second Synod of Ancyra (A. D. 358), in which it is said 
that John " calls the Logos of God only-begotten God." J 
But one who has observed the inaccuracy of such refer- 
ences to Scripture in the writings of the Fathers, will not 
attach much weight to this. 

Among the numerous witnesses adduced- by Wetstein and 
Tregelles, these are all, as I believe, which really support 
the reading Qeos ; and their testimony, as has already been 
intimated, is far from unexceptionable. Didymus, as we 

having been able to procure this volume, I take these references 
at second hand from the work of Guericke, " De Schola quae Alex- 
andrine floruit Catechetical Pars II. p. 36. There is no quotation 
of John i. 18 in the other extant writings of Didymus, most of which 
exist only in a Latin translation. 

* Hseres. LXV. c. 5. Opp. I. 612, C, ed. Petav. Here, in the re- 
mark which follows the quotation, Oeos and vlos are so interchanged 
as to excite some suspicion of a corruption in the text. — Hseres. 
LXX. c. 7. Opp. I. 817, 818. To Se EvayyeXiov e(prj • Oeov ovbels 
Tra)7T0T€ i<£pa.K€V, 6 fiovoycvrjs Qeos avrbs e^yrjaaro. 

f Movoyevr) Qebv avrbv <pdo~K(DV Ilepi rrarpos yeypa7rrat, 

aXrjOtvov GeoO • Trepl vlov de, on fiovoytvrjs Qeos- (Ancorat. c. 3. 
Opp. II. 8, C, D.) A little before, however, the passage in question 
is quoted thus : 6 fiovoyevfjs, 6 cav els tov koXttov tov iraTpos, av- 
ros i^yrjcraTo. (Cap. 2. p. 7, C.) But so far as can be judged from 
the confused and apparently corrupt text which precedes and follows, 
it seems probable that the word Qeos has here been omitted by the 
mistake of a transcriber. 

$ f O Se tov Qeov rbv Aoyou fiovoyevrj Qcbv .... (frrjcri. (Apud 
Epiphan. Hseres. LXXIII. c 8. Opp. I. 854, C.) Supposing the 
authors of this Epistle to have read vlos in John i. 18, they might 
still have thought themselves justified in making this statement by a 
comparison of that verse with John i. 1, and by the fact that they 
regarded the term Son, applied to Christ, as necessarily implying 
his divinity. A little after the passage just cited (c. 9. p. 855, B] 



NOTE c. 456 

we informed by his pupils Palladius and Jerome, became 
Hind at four or five years of age. He has consequently 
quoted from memory, and often inaccurately, repeatedly 
assigning to one Epistle of Paul passages which belong to 
another. In his first quotation of the present passage, as 
given by Guericke, he has substituted iv tw koKttco for ds 
tou koXttov, and avros for eKtlvos; in the second, which 
extends only to the word naTpos, he has iv toIs KoXnois. 
Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius are also notorious 
for the carelessness of their quotations from Scripture. 
Semisch, in his valuable w r ork on the Apostolical Memoirs 
used by Justin Martyr, after observing that many of the 
Fathers have cited the New Testament from memory, says 

they say : " The Son is God because he is Son of God, just as he 
is man because he is Son of Man," — vios Qeos pkv, kclSo vios 
GeoO, a)s avSpconos, Ka6b vios dvOp&nov. So Eusebius says that 
Christ is " the only-begotten Son of God, and therefore God," or 
" a divine being," tov BeoO povoyevrjs vios, kcu dia tovto Geos 
(Dem. Evang. Lib. V. c. 4. p. 227, B), and that "what is begot- 
ten of God must be God," or " divine," to ytysvvr)pkvov i< tov ©eou 
Qeos av cirj (De Eccles. Theol. Lib. II. c. 14. p. 123, C, cf. p. 124, 
C, and. Lib. I. c. 12. p. 72, D). Eusebius applies the term Qeos 
to Christ in an inferior sense. In quoting Eusebius here and else- 
where, I use Gaisford's edition, but refer to the pages of Viger's edi- 
tion (Paris, 1628), which are noted in the margin of the former. 

I will give a single illustration from Gregory Nyssen of the want 
of accuracy among the Fathers in such references to Scripture as 
that which we are considering. This writer, in mentioning the names 
which the Apostle Paul has given to Christ, says, among other 

things, " He has called him a propitiation for souls, and 

first-born of the new creation, and only -begotten Son, crowned 

with glory and honor," &c. — avTov e/caAecre tkao-Trjpiov 

yj/VXCOV, KOL TTjS K a I V fj S KTLO~€CDS TTpCOTOTOKOV, 

Koi vlbv p. o v y e v 77, do^rj kol Tipfj iaTec^avcopevov, k. t. \. — 
De Perf. Christ. Forma, Opp. III. 276, 277. Compare De Vit£ 
Mosis, Opp. I. 225, D : "Os [6 dnoaToXos] (firjoriv • otl bv irpoi- 
6eTo 6 Qeos tkaaTrjpLov r cov y^vxcov rj pcov. (See Romam 
Ui. 25.) 43 



4Ab APPENDIX. 

that "next to Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, 
Epiphanius, and Ephrem the Syrian have Quoted most 
loosely. Verbal citations in their writings, as in those of 
Justin, are only to be reckoned as exceptions." * It is fur- 
ther to be observed in respect to Epiphanius, that his text 
is well known to be very corrupt,! and that he is probably 
the most careless, confused, and blundering writer to be 
found among the Fathers. Petavius, though possessing in 
some respects eminent qualifications for an editor, appears 
to have given but little attention to the criticism of the 
text. In many instances gross corruptions, the correction of 
which seems obvious, are left without any suggestion of 
emendation. 

The three authorities adduced by Dr. Tregelles which 
may be regarded as doubtful, are Origen, Basil the Great, 
and Cyril of Alexandria. Origen (A. D. 230), according 
to the text of his Benedictine editors, has the reading eeos 

* Die apostol. DenkwQrdigkeiten des Martyrers Justinus, (Hamb. 
1848,) p. 209; comp. p. 218, et seqq. See also Whitby's Examen 
Millii, Lib. I. Cap. I. Sect. 2 et 3. — I will give one or two speci- 
mens of Epiphanius's professed citations from Scripture. Just before 
his first quotation of John i. 18 with the reading Oeds, he adduces 
the following as the words of Christ: — Zco eyo), <a\ £rj iv e/xot 6 
a7ro(TT€i\as fie Tvarrip, "I live, and the Father who sent me lives 
in me"; comp. John vi. 57 and Gal. ii. 20. (Haeres. LXV. c. 5. 
Opp. I. 612, C.) — Again, to select a passage introduced like his 
second quotation of John i. 18, compare the following: — *H ttoXlv, 
a)S Xeyec to "EvayyiXiov • Kal dvrjXdev els t6v ovpavov, kol eKaQiuev 
iv 6>£ia tov narpos, Kal ep^erat, Kplvai (covras kol veKpovs, " Or 
again, as the Gospel says, 'And he ascended into heaven, and sat 
down at the right hand of the Father, and is coming to judge the 
living and the dead'"; comp. Mark xvi. 19. (Haeres. LXII. c. 5. 
Opp. I. 517, D.) See also Opp. I. 36, B, C ; 145, C ; 161, A ; 486, 
D ; 519, C, D, for a few of the numerous illustrations that might be 
given. Equally striking examples might be cited from Clement o* 
Alexandria 

t See Wetstein, Nov. Test Graec (Prolegom.), Tom. I. p. 72 



NOTE c. 457 

twice ,* but, on the other hand, he has vlos once, and once 
vlbs tov Oeov, u Son of God." In a work preserved only in 
the Latin translation of Rufinus, he also quotes the passage 
with the reading unigenitus Dei Jilius.* Basil (A. D. 
370) has 9eof once, and in another passage he mentions 
" True Son, Only-begotten God, Power of God, and Logos," 
as names given to Christ in Scripture, or expressions 
which, to use his phrase, " the Scripture knows " ; but he 
twice quotes the text in question with the reading vlos^ 
In Cyril of Alexandria (A. D. 412), as edited by Aubert, 
I have found Qeos four times ; but he has vlos three times. J 
I have not thoroughly examined all of his works. 

* Origen reads Be 6s, In Joan. Tom. ii. c. 29, and Tom. xxxii. 
c. 13. Opp. IV. 89, B, and 438, D. — Y I 6 s, Contra Gels., Lib. II. 
c. 71. Opp. I. 440, F. (So De la Rue, from two manuscripts; but 
the previous edition of Hceschel, followed by Spencer, instead of 
6 iLovoycvrjS vlos, reads Kal fxovoyevrjs ye <ov Qeos, which has all the 
appearance of a marginal gloss.) — Y los tov c o , In Joan. 
Tom. vi. c. 2. Opp. IV. 102, D. (So De la Rue, following the 
Bodleian manuscript, which appears to be a very excellent one; the 
earlier edition of Huet, which was founded, on a single manuscript, 
reads vlos Oeoj.) A little after, in two allusions to the passage, 
6 yiovoyevr]s is used alone, without vlos or Qeos. Opp. IV. 102, E, 
and 114, C. — Unigenitus Dei Jilius, In Cant. Lib. IV. Opp. III. 
91, E. 

t Basil reads Geoy, De Spiritu Sancto, c. 6, Opp. III. 12, B, ed. 
Benedict., where earlier editions have vlos, contrary to the best manu- 
scripts. Compare c. 8, p. 14, C — On the other hand, Basil has 
vios, De Spiritu Sancto, ell, Opp. III. 23, A, where the six manu- 
scripts of Gamier appear to agree in this reading, though one of 
Matthaei's Moscow manuscripts has Geos. (See Matthias's Nov. 
Test. Graec. I. 780.) Basil also reads vlos, Epist. 234 (al. 400), c. 3. 
Opp. III. 358, B. 

{ In the text prefixed to Cyril's commentary on the passage in 
question, Opp. IV. 103, C, we find the reading vlos ; the commen- 
tary itself, however, a? printed, has Geo?. (See p. 107, B, and comp. 
p. 105, B ) Cyril's remarks on this place are cited in the scholia of 
two Moscow manuscripts given by Matthad (Nov. Test. Graec. ef 



458 APPENDIX. 

The eight writers cited by Dr. Tregelles who really 
favor the common reading will be mentioned hereafter, 
when the evidence for that reading is stated. 

Two others, Gregory of Nyssa (A. D. 370) and Fulgen- 
tius (A. D. 507), as has before been mentioned, have only 
alluded to the passage in question, and not in such a way 
as to enable us to determine with confidence how they 
read it.* 



Lat. IV. 24). One who compares these with his text as published by 
Aubert, will hardly feel much confidence in the latter. — Cyril also 
reads Geo? in his Thesaurus, Assert, xiii. and xxv. Opp. Tom. V. 
P. i. p. 137, B, and 237, A; and in the Dialogue " Quod Unus sit 
Christus," ibid. p. 786, E. — He has the reading vios, Thesaur., 
Assert, xxxv. p. 365, C ; and Advers. Nestorium, Lib. III. c. 5. 
Opp. VI. 90, B. This reading is also found twice in an extract 
which he gives from Julian in his work against that emperor. (Con- 
tra Julian., Lib X. Opp. VI. (P. ii.) p. 333, C.) — In an allusion to 
John i. 18 we find 6 povoycvrjs tov Beov Aoyos, 6 iv KoXnois 
&v tov TraTpos. (Apol. adv. Orient. Opp. VI. 187, C.) This is 
worth noting, as showing how little can be safely inferred from such 
allusions in regard to the reading of a passage. 

* Gregory of Nyssa alludes to John i. 18, introducing the words 
" who is in the bosom of the Father " in connection with the expres- 
sion '• only-begotten God " eight times ; in connection with the 
phrase " only-begotten Son" twice. I will quote one example of 
each kind, and refer to the others. — In the treatise De Vita Mosis, 
Opp. I. 1 92, B, we find, 6 fiovoyevrjs G e 6 9 , 6 &v iv k6\itoi$ tov Tra- 
rpos, ovtos icrriv f) Se£ia tov vyjrlorov. See also In Cantic. Homil. 
xiii. Opp. I. 663, A.— Contra Eunom. Orat. II. Opp. II. 432, B ; 
447, A; and 478, D.— Orat III. p. 506, C. — Orat. VI. p. 595 

[properly 605], A. — Orat. X. p. 681, A. On the other hand, 

Epist. ad Flavian., Opp. III. 648, A, we find, 6 [lovoyevijs v 16 s , 6 
a>v iv toTs k6\7tois tov narpos, 6 iv dpxfj &v, k. r. X. See also 
Contra Eunom , Orat. II. Opp. II. 466, C. — Once we have 6 iv 
v^rlaTOLS Oeos, wv iv toIs koXkols tov TraTpos, k. t. X. In 
Cantic. Homil. xv. Opp. I. 697, A. 

It is to be observed that 6 fiovoyevrjs 6eoy, "the onlv-begotten 
God," is a favorite designation of Christ in the writings of this Fa- 



NOTE c. 459 

The eight remaining witnesses produced by Dr. Tre- 
g e ll es — Lucian, Basil of Seleucia, Isidore of Pelusium, 
Arius, Marcellus, Eunomius, Gaudentius, and Ferrandus 
— have, as I believe, nowhere quoted or alluded to the text 
in question. The passages in their writings appealed to 
by Wetstein have merely the expression fiovoyevrjs Geo* or 

ther. There are one hundred and twenty-Jive examples of its use in 
the treatise against Eunomius alone. It occurs fifteen times in the 
" Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarem," first published in Zacagni's 
" Collectanea," etc. (Rome, 1698); but, notwithstanding the refer- 
ences of Wetstein, no allusion will be found in that treatise'to John 
i. 18. 

In one place Gregory says, " The Scripture declare* concerning 
the Logos who was in the beginning, that he is tne only-begotten 
God, the first-born of the whole creation." (De Ptrf. Christ. Forma. 
Opp. III. 291, A.) But the imprudence of concluding from this that 
he actually had the reading Qcos in the passage in question, has 
already been illustrated. See before, p. 445, note. 

Fulgentius has alluded to John i. 18 six times. I will quote briefly 
all the examples, as, taken together, they clearly show how little is to 
be inferred from such allusions. 

1. In connection with the phrase unigenitus Dens. — ;: Ut ille uni- 
genitus Deus, qui est in sinu Patris, non solum in muliere, sed etiam 
ex muliere fieret homo." Epist. xvii. c. 3, in Migne's Patrologise 
Cursus Completus, Vol. LXV. col. 272, B. — "De Deo unigenito, 
qui est in sinu Patris, ut dixi, omnia haec personaliter accipe." De 
Fide, c. 20. col. 681, B. 

2. With unigenitus Jilius. — " Quis enim natus est Deus verus de 
Deo vero, nisi unigenitus filius, qui est in sinu Patris ? " Ad Trasi- 
mund , Lib. III. c. 4. col. 272, B. — " Si vero unigenitus filius, qui 
est in sinu Patris, post ffiternam nativitatem," etc. Epist. xvii. c. 15. 
col. 459, C. — "Dei ergo filius unigenitus, qui est in sinu Patris, ut 
carnem hominis animamque mundaret," etc. De Fide, c. 17. col. 
679, C. 

3. With unigenitus alone. — " Quia unigenitus, qui est in sinu Patris, 
secundum quod caro est, plenus est gratiae," etc. De Incarnations, 
c. 18. col. 583, C. 

The expression " unigenitus Deus " occurs in the writings of Ful 
gentius about ninety times, 
43 * 



460 APPENDIX. 

unigenitus Deus. I have not read through the Epistles of 
Isidore of Pelusium; but with respect to all the other 
authors named, I think it may be safely said, that no trace 
of the reading Qeos or Deus occurs in their works. An 
examination of Wetstein's references to them will be found 
in the note below.* Tregelles makes no citations. 

* Lucian (A. I). 290) is thus referred to by Wetstein: " Lucia- 
nus martyr in Confess, ap. Socrat. H. E. II. 10." The Confession of 
Faith here intended is the second Formula of the Synod of Antioch 
(A. D. 341), which, according to Sozomen (Hist. Eccles. Lib. III. 
c. 5), " they said was found in the handwriting of Lucian the Martyr" 
It may be seen in Socrates, as above referred to, and also in Athana- 
sius de Synodis, c. 23. Opp. I. P. ii. p. 735, et seq. Learned men 
have not generally regarded it as the work of Lucian, who died about 
thirty years before it was first heard of; but the question is unimpor- 
tant to our purpose. It simply says, " We believe in one God, 

the Father almighty, the creator and maker of the universe; and in 
one Lord Jesus Christ his Son, the only-begotten God, through whom 
all things were made,** &c. 

In the case of the other authors mentioned above, it may be suffi- 
cient to refer to the places in their writings cited by Wetstein, but 
which will be found, on examination, to contain merely the phrase 
"only-begotten God." 

Basil of Seleucia (A. D. 448). See Orat. I. Opp. p. 5. Paris. 
1622. 

Isidore of Pelusium (A. D. 412). See Epist. III. 95. Opp. p. 200, 
ed. Rittershus. 

Arius (A D. 316). See Athanas. de Synod, c. 15. Opp. Tom. I. 
P. ii. p. 728, E, ed. Benedict. In a letter of Arius given by Epipha- 
nius, we find the words, 7r\r)pr]S Qeos fJLovoyevrjs, dvaWoicoTos, k.t. A. 
(Hagres. LXIX. c. 6. Opp. I. 731, D.) But here a comma should 
probably be placed after the word Qeo$. 

Marcellus (A. D. 320). See Euseb. contra Marcel. Lib. I. c. 4. 
p. 19, C. 

Eunomius (A. D. 360). See his Expositio Fidei, c. 3, apud Fa- 
bricii Bibl. Graec. Tom. VIII. pp. 255, 256 ; and his Apologeticus, cc. 
lb, 21, 26, ibid. pp. 281, 290, 298. These treatises of Eunomius may 
also be found in Rettberg's Marcelliana, and in ThhVs Bibliotheca 
Patrum Graecorum Dogmatica, Vol. II. 



NOTE C. 461 

Such is the evidence of the Fathers in favor of the read- 
ing e*6s. I know of nothing to be added to what has been 
mentioned. We may now consider the testimony which 
supports the common reading. Only a small part of this, 
so far as I am aware, has ever been adduced. 

The following Greek authors quote John i. 18 with the 
reading vlos : — Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in Gaul (A. D. 
178), as preserved in a very early Latin translation;* 
Hippolytus (A. D. 220) ; f the third Synod at Antioch (A. D. 
269), in their Epistle to Paul of Samosata; J the author of 
the " Acta Disputationis Archelai cum Manete " (about 
A. D. 300 ?), as preserved in the Latin version ; § Alexan- 
der, Bishop of Alexandria ( A. D. 313) ; || Eusebius of Caesa- 
rea (A. D. 315), five or six times; IT Eustathius, Bishop 

Gaudentius (A. D. 387). See Serm. XIX. in the Maxima Biblio- 
theca Veterum Patrum, Tom. V. p. 975, D, or in Migne's Patrol. 
Tom. XX. col. 990, B. 

Ferrandus (A= D. 533) has the expression " unigenitus Deus " eight 
times, viz. Epist. iii. (ad Anatol.) cc. 2, 7, 9, 10, 11 ; v. (ad Severum 
Scholast.) cc. 2, 5; vii. (ad Reginum Comitem Paraenet.) c. 12; in 
Migne's Patrol. Tom. LXVIL, or in the Max. Bibl. Patr. Tom. IX. 

* Contra Haeres. Lib. IV. c. 20. (c. 37, ed. Grab.) § 6. Opp. I. 
627, ed. Stieren. Irenaeus has also once the reading unigenitus Jilius 
Dei (Lib. III. c. 11. $ 6. p. 466), and once unigenitus Deus (Lib. IV. 
c. 20. § 11. p. 630). The reading Jilius Dei obviously supports Jilius 
rather than Deus. 

t Contra Noetum, c. 5. Opp. II. 10, ed. Fabric; also in Routh's 
Scriptorum Eccles. Opuscula, I. 58, ed. alt. 

X Concilia, ed. Coleti, I. 869, B ; also in Routh. Reliq. Sacr. II. 
473 (III. 297, ed. alt.), and in Dionysii Alexandrini Opp. (Rom. 
1796), p. 287. 

§ Cap. 32. In Zacagnii Collectan. Monum. Vett., p. 54 ; also in 
Hippolyti Opp. ed Fabric. II. 170, and Routh, Reliq. Saer. IV. 213 
(V. 121, ed. alt). — On the date of this work see Lardner, " Credi- 
bility," etc. Part. II. Chap. LXV. 

|| Epist. ad Alexandrum Constantinop., apud Theodoreti Hist. 
Eccl. Lib. I. c. 4. (al. 3.) p. 12, ed. Reading. 

T De Eccles. Theol. Lib. I. c. 9. p. 67, D ; - c. 20. §§ 4, 5. p 86 



462 APPENDIX, 

of Antioch (A. D. 320);* Athanasius (A. D. 326, died 
A. D. 373), four times, and Pseud- Athanasius once;t the 
Emperor Julian (A. D. 362) twice; J Titus of Bostra 

A, B; — ibid. § 7, sub fin. p. 92, D ; — Lib. II. c. 23, ad fin. p. 142, 
C; — and Coram, in Psalm, lxxiii. 11, in Montfaucon's Collectio 
Nova, etc. I. 440, A. 

The first passage of Eusebius which has been referred to is peculiar, 
reading as follows : ToO re €vayy€\io~rov diappi)br}v avrbv vlov fiovo- 
yevr) eivai SiddaicovTOs 6V hv €<pr}, Beov ovdels iapaice TrooTrore, 6 
fiovoyevrjs vlos, r) pouoyevr)s Ocos, 6 <ov els tov koXttov tov TtaTpos, 
€K€lvos i^rjyrjo-aroy that is, "The Evangelist expressly teaches that 
he is the only-begotten Son, when he says, * No man hath seen God at 
any time; the only-begotten Son, or only-begotten God, ivho is in the 
bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.' " But here it is evident, 
as Montagu remarks in his note on the place, that the words rj fxovo- 
yevrjs Qeos, t; or only-begotten God/' form no part of the quotation. 
They appear to be a marginal gloss which has crept into the text 
— The only passage which I have found in Eusebius that seems to 
countenance the reading Qeos is the following. After using the 
strongest language respecting the supremacy of the Father over all 
other beings, and quoting Ephesians iv. 5, 6, he proceeds: "And 
He alone may be called (xprj^aTi^oi av) the one God, and Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ; but the Son [may be called] only-begotten 
God, who is in the bosom of the Father (6 de vlos [lovoycvrjs Oeos, 
6 &v els rbv Kokirov tov irarpos) ; and the Paraclete, Spirit, but 
neither God nor Son." (De Eccles. Theol. Lib. III. c. 7. pp. 174, 
175.) Here it will be observed that Eusebius does not assert that 
the Son is called " only-begotten God " in Scripture, but only that it 
is proper to give him that name. This passage, therefore, does not 
weaken the force of his express quotations of John i. 18 with the 
reading vlos* 

* De Engastrimytho, as printed (from the edition of Leo Allatius) 
in Tom. II. p. 1150, med. of the Critici Sacri, ed. Amst. 1698; in 
Tom. VIII. col. 443, 1. 34, of the London edition. 

t Athanasius de Decret. Nic. Synod, c. 13. Opp. I. 219, E, ed. 
Benedict. —Ibid. c. 21. p. 227, D. — Orat. II. contra Arian. c. 62. 
p. 530, D.— Orat. IY. contra Arian. c. 26. p. 638, A. — Pseud 
Athanasius contra Sabellian. c 2. Opp. II. 38, D. 

X Apud Cyril. Alex. Lib. X. contra Julian. Opp. YI. (ii.) 333 t 
also in " Defense du Paganisme par l'Empereur Julien en Grec et en 



NOTE c. 463 

k. D. 362) ; * Gregory Nazianzen (A. D. 370) ; f the author 
of a Homily published with the works of Basil ; J Rufinus 
Syrus or Palsestinensis (about A. D. 390), as preserved in 
a very early Latin translation ; § Chrysostom (A. D. 398), 
at least eight times ;|| Theodoret (A. D. 423), at least 
four times ; % and Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople 
(A. D. 434).** To these may be added several Greek 
writers of less weight, being later, and some of them of 
quite uncertain date; as Pseudo-Cyril, ft Pseudo-Caesa- 

Francais, avec des Notes par Mr. le Marquis d'Argens," 3 e ed., II. 
120, 122. 

* Contra Manichaeos, Lib. III., apud Basnage, Thesaur. Monum. 
Eecles. et Hist, sive Canisii Lectiones Antiq., I. 144, 145. — But ibid. 
p. 153, we have the reading 6 fjLovoyevrjs vlos Qeos ; compare the in- 
terpolation on the same page in the quotation of Matthew iii. 17 or 
xvii. 5, as follows : Kdi fiapTvpel p.ev rj tov Kvplov (pcovq • Ovtos 
€Otiv 6 vlos fJiov 6 fiovoyevr) s Ka\ ayaTrrjTos-, iv <a iyco ev- 
boKr\(Ta. 

t Orat. XXXV. c. 17. Opp. I. 573, C, ed. Bill. 

\ Pseudo-Basil. Homil. in Psalm, xxviii. c 3. Opp. I. 359, F. 

§ De Fide, Lib. I. c. 16, in Sirmondi Opera Varia, Tom. I. ( Yenet. 
1728) col. 166, A. — Gamier supposes the Latin translation to have 
been made by Julian of Eclanum (A. D. 420), the famous Pelagian 
bishop. 

j| De Incomprehensibili Dei Natura, Horn. IY. c. 3, bis. Opp. I. 
475, A, E, ed. Montf. — Ibid. c. 4. p. 476, B. — Ibid. Horn. Y. c. 1. 
p. 481, A. — Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, c. 3. Opp. III. 470, B. — In 
Isaiam, cap. vi. § 1. Opp. YI. 64, A. — In illud, Filius ex se nihil, 
etc. c. 6 Opp. YI. 264, D. — In Joan. Horn. XY. (al. XIY.) Opp. 
VIII. 84, B (text). — Ibid. c. 2. p. 86, C, compared with p. 87, B. 

1" Interp. in Psalm, cix. 1. Opp. 1. 850, A, ed. Sirmond. — Eranist. 
Dial. I. Opp. IV. 14, B. — Haeret. Fab. Lib. V. c. 1. Opp. IV 251, 
B. — Ibid. c. 2 p. 253, D. 

** Orat. XV. Analect. p. 440, ed. Riceard. 

ft I refer to the " Capitula de Trinitate," published as a work of 
Cyril of Alexandria by Angelo Mai in his " Script. Vet. Nova Col- 
lectio/' Tom. VII. P. II. In this work, cap. 6. p. 31, John i. 18 is 
quoted with the reading vlos ; but Dr. Tregelles (" Account of the 



464 APPENDIX. 

rius,* Andreas Cretensis (A. D. 635 Cave, 680 Saxe. 
650 Oudin), f Joannes Damascenus (A. D. 730), three 
times, t Theophylact (A. D. 1070), § and Euthymius Ziga- 
benus (A. D. 1110). || 

The testimony of the Latin Fathers may now be pro- 
duced. The most important part of this was long ago 
exhibited by Sabatier with his usual diligence and accu- 
racy. A careful examination of his citations might have 
saved Dr. Tregelles from some errors. 

The following Latin writers quote John i. 18 with 
the reading flius : — TertuWmn (A. D. 200) ;f Hilary 
(A. D. 354), at least seven times;** Phasbadius (A. D. 

Printed Text of the Greek N. T.," P- 232, note t) is probably correct 
in regarding it as the production of a later writer than Cyril. 

* John i. 18 is quoted with the reading vlos in a work entitled 
" Quaestiones et Responsiones," or " Dialogi IV.," which appears 
to oe as late as the seventh century, but which has been attributed to 
Csesarius, the brother of Gregory Nazianzen. It passed current under 
his name in the time of Photius (A. D. 858), who has described it. 
The quotation of John i. 18 may be found in Dial. I. of the work, as 
published, in a Latin version, in the Max. Bibl. Vet. Patr., V. 753, 
G. The Greek, which is contained in Vol. VI. of Galland's Biblio- 
theca Veterum Patrum, I have not been able to consult. 

t Orat. in Transfigurat. Opp. p. 44, ed. Combefis. 

X De Fide Orthodoxa, Lib. I. c. 1. Opp. I. 123, C, ed. Le Quien. 

— Advers. Nestorianos, c. 32, Ms, Opp. I. 562, E. 
§ Comment, in loc. 

|| Comment, in loc. 
T Advers. Praxeam, c. 15. 

** Tract, in Psalm, cxxxviii. c. 35. Opp. col. 520, ed. Benedict — 
De Trinitate, Lib II. c. 23. col. 799, E. — Lib IV. c. 8. col. 831, C. 

— Ibid. c. 42. col. 852, C. — Lib. V. c. 33. col. 873, D. — Ibid. c. 34. 
col. 874, A. — Lib. VI. c. 39. col. 905, E. Hilary's comment on 
this passage shows conclusively that he read filius. 

"Wetstein quotes in favor of the reading Qeos " Hilarius de Trinit. 
passim," and Hilary is also one of Dr. Tregelles's witnesses. The 
expression " unigenitus Deus " occurs in the treatise "De Trinitate" 
about one hundred and four times ; but the only quotations of John i. 18 



NOTE c. 465 

859);* Victorinus Afer (A. D. 360), six times ;t Am- 
brose (A. D. 374), at least seven times ; J Faustinus 
(A. D. 384) ;§ Augustine (A. D. 396), three times;! 
Adimantus the Manichsean (A. D. 396); IT Maximums, 
the Arian bishop (A. D. 428), twice;** the author of 

to be found in it have been referred to above, and they all (six in num- 
ber) have the reading Jilius. The only passage in this work, and, so 
far as I know, in Hilary's writings, which can be imagined to support 
the reading Deus is in Lib. XII. c. 24, Opp. col. 1125, A, where we 
find the words " cum unigenitus Deus in sinu Patris est." It will be 
seen, on examining the context, that est is the emphatic word in this 
sentence, and that there is no more reason for regarding the expres- 
sion " unigenitus Deus " as a citation from the Apostle John, than 
there is for supposing it to be quoted from the Apostle Paul in c. 26 
of the same book, where Hilary says, " cum secundum Apostolum 
ante tempora seterna sit unigenitus Deus "; compare 2 Tim. i. 9. 

* Contra Arianos, c. 12, in Migne's Patrol. Tom. XX. col. 21, D, 
or in Max. Bibl. Patr. IV. 302, F. — Phaebadius (or Phoebadius) is 
another of Dr. Tregelles's witnesses ; but even the expression " uni- 
genitus Deus " does not occur in his writings. 

t De Generat. Yerbi Divini, ad Candidum, c. 16 (unigenitus Dei 
filius) — Ibid. c. 20. — Advers. Arium, Lib. I. cc. 2, 4. — Ibid. c. 15 
(*' unigenitus " alone). — Lib. IV. c. 8. — Ibid, c 33 (unigenitus solus 
filius). In Migne's Patrol. Tom. VIII. col. 1029, 1030, 1041, 1042, 
1050, 1119, 1137, or Max. Bibl. Patr. IV. 167, 169, 254, 255, 257, 
282, 289. 

X De Joseph, c. 14, al. 84. Opp. I. 510, D, ed. Benedict. — De 
Bened. Patriarch, c. 11, al. 51. col. 527, F. — In Luc. Lib. I. c. 25, 
col. 1274, J). — Ibid. Lib. II. c. 12. col. 1286, B. — De Fide, Lib. III. 
c. 3, al. 24. Opp. II. 501, C — De Spir. Sanct. c. 1, al. 26. col. 605, 
F. — Epist. xxii. c. 5. col. 875, E. 

§ De Trinitate, Lib. I c. 2 § 5, in Migne's Patrol. Tom. XIII 
col 54, A, B, or Max. Bibl. Patr. V. 642, F, G. 

|| In Joan. Tract, xxxi. c. 3. — Tract, xxxv. c. 5 — Tract, xlvii. 
c. 3. — Opp. Tom. III. P. II. col. 1638, 1660, 1734, ed Migne. 

Tf Apud Augustinum contra Adimant. c. 9. § 1. Opp. Tom. VEIL 
col. 139, ed. Migne. 

** Apud Augustini Collat. cum Maximin. cc. 13, 18. Opp. Tom 
VIII. col. 719 et 728, ed. Migne 



466 APPENDIX. 

the work against Virimadus ascribed to Idacius Clams 
(A. D. 385), three times;* Yigilius of Tapsa (A. D. 484), 
or the author, whoever he was, of Libri XII. de Trini- 
tate ; f Junilius (A. D. 550) ; { and Alcuin (A. D. 780). § 

Such is the external evidence respecting the reading of 
the passage in question. It does not seem worth while to 
give a formal summary of it. The preceding examination 
of the testimony of the Fathers does not profess to be 
exhaustive. But it has been pursued so far that there is 
no probability that subsequent investigation will add many 
important facts, or affect the general conclusion to which 
we are led by those which have been produced. 

It will be observed that a great majority of the witnesses 
for the reading Gcos, whose locality can be determined, are 
Alexandrian, or belong to places under Alexandrian influ- 
ence ; though the Alexandrian authorities are far from be- 
ing unanimous in support of it.|| The witnesses on the other 
side are not only much more numerous, but are far more 
widely diffused, representing almost every important part 
of the whole Christian world. In respect to antiquity, we 
have in favor of the reading vlos, before the middle of the 

* Advers. Virimadum, in Max Bibl. Patr. Y. 731, E, and 740, B, 
E. Montfaucon ascribes this work, and also the first eight books of 
the one next mentioned, to Idatius the Chronicler (A. D. 445). 
See his edition of Athanasius, Tom. II. pp. 602, 603. 

t De Trinitate, Lib. IV. in Max. Bibl. Patr. VIII. 783, A, or in 
Athanasii Opp. II. 615, A, ed. Montf. 

% De Part. Div. Legis, Lib. I. c. 16, in Max. Bibl. Patr. X. 342, H, 
or Migne's Patrol. Tom. LXVIII. col. 22, C. 

§ Comm. super Joan, in loc. Opp. I. 472, 473, ed. Froben. — 
The passage referred to by Wetstein, De Fide S. Trin. Lib. I. c. 12 (al 
13, al. 14), has only the expression "unigenitus Deus." Opp. I. 712. 

|| Thus the Philoxenian or Harclean Syriac, revised and collated 
with two Greek manuscripts at Alexandria, A. D. 616, has the read- 
ing " God " in the margin, but not in the text. 



NOTE c. 467 

fourth century, — the date assigned by Teschendorf to our 
oldest Greek manuscript of the New Testament, — the 
evidence of the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac versions, 
both belonging probably to the second century, and that of 
Hippolytus, the third Synod of Antioch, Alexander of 
Alexandria, Eusebius of Csesarea, and Eustathius of An- 
tioch, besides Irenseus, Tertullian, and the author of the 
" Discussion between Archelaus and Manes," to whose tes- 
timony exception may perhaps be taken. During the 
same period we have on the other side only Clement of 
Alexandria, the Doctrina Orientalis, and the Coptic ver- 
sion, with the Peshito Syriac as commonly edited, if that 
form of the Syriac text is of so early a date. In the 
period that follows, though the four manuscripts which 
support the reading Qeos are of the highest character, yet 
the weight of the whole evidence of manuscripts, versions, 
and Fathers must certainly be regarded as greatly prepon- 
derating against it. 

Let us now see what view is to be taken of the internal 
evidence. In respect to this Dr. Tregelles says : u In 
forming a judgment between these two readings, it must 
be remembered that povoyevr)? would naturally suggest vlos 
as the word which should follow it, whereas Ocos strikes 
the ear as something peculiar, and not elsewhere occurring 
in Scripture ; the change, being but of one letter (YC for 
0C), might be most inadvertently made ; and though the 
evidence of the Latin versions and the Curetonian Syriac 
is not of small weight, yet the same chance of a change 
would, in a case of this kind, affect the copyists of a version 
(or indeed the translators) [?] just as much as the tran- 
scribers of Greek MSS. Geo?, as the more difficult read- 
ing, is entitled to special attention/' &c* 

* Account of the Printed Text of the Greek N. T., p. 235. 
44 



46S APPENDIX. 

There is some force in these remarks ; but not so much 
as may at first be thought. Though fiovoyevrjs Otos is a 
harsh expression and an unusual combination to us, it was 
not so to copyists of the fourth century and later. " The 
only-begotten God " was, as we have seen, an exceedingly 
common appellation of Christ in the writings of that period, 
the Father being distinguished from him as dyevprjTos^ avap- 
Xos, dvaiTios, "unbegotten, unoriginated, uncaused." It is 
strange that Dr. Tregelles should regard it as an expres- 
sion to which the Arians of those days would object. The 
Arians did not hesitate to apply the term Oeos or Deus to 
Christ, using it, as the Ante-Nicene Fathers had done 
before them, in an inferior sense ; * and though no example 
of a quotation of John i. 18 with the reading Oeos has been 
produced from any Arian writer, we find the expression 
fiopoyeuqs Qeos in the so-called Apostolical Constitutions 
(seven times), in the larger Epistle of the Pseudo-Ignatius 
to the Philadelphians, and in the fragments which remain 
to us of the writings of Arius and his followers, Asterius, 
Eunomius, and others, referred to by Wetstein. Being a 
phrase, then, so frequently used both by the Catholic Fa- 
thers and their opponents, transcribers must have been 
very familiar with it. In the passage in question Qeou had 
just preceded, bringing Qeos before the mind of the copy- 
ist. The word Oeos occurs in the New Testament three 
times as often as vlos. Is it strange, then, that one or 
more transcribers, under such circumstances, should in- 
advertently substitute the more common for the less fre- 
quent word, the one differing from the other, in the abbre- 
viated form, only in a single letter ? And might not this 
mistake have been easily propagated, so as to extend to 
the comparatively few authorities which exhibit the reading 

* See before, p. 120, note. 



NOTE c. 469 

But there is another aspect of the internal evidence, as 
important as that to which we have just attended. " No 
man hath seen God at any time ; the only-begotten God, 
who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." 
Does not every one perceive that the introduction of the 
phrase "only-begotten God," after the use of the word 
" God," alone and absolutely, immediately before it, is a 
harshness which we can hardly suppose in any writer? 
Does not the word " Father," in a sentence like this, almost 
necessarily imply that the correlative " Son " has just pre- 
ceded ? And is there anything analogous to this expres- 
sion, " the only-begotten God," in the writings of John, or 
in any other part of the New Testament ? 

One can hardly believe that so fair-minded and impartial 
a critic as Dr. Tregelles, after a careful re-examination of 
the whole evidence, will regard himself as justified in 
introducing the reading jiovoycvrjs 6cos into the text. But 
supposing this to be the true reading, it is obvious that the 
being so designated is here distinguished in the clearest 
manner from Him to whom the name " God " is emphati- 
cally and absolutely applied ; and that the word Oeos , in 
this expression, must therefore be used in an inferior sense, 
unless John taught the existence of two Supreme Beings. 
It will also strike every one, that the title " only-begotten 
God " is- not suitable to a being who possesses the attribute 
of self-existence. 

In respect to the meaning of the appellation "only- 
begotten Son," or " only Son," repeatedly given to Christ 
in the writings of St. John, it may be sufficient to refer to 
the remarks of Mr. Norton in the former part of this 
volume.* The corresponding Hebrew word is repeatedly 
rendered in the Septuagint by ayairr^ros or ayair^evo^ 
* beloved." 

* See before, p. 220, 



470 APPENDIX. 

(5.) John iii. 34. " For he whom God hath sent speak- 
eth the words of God ; for God giveth not the Spirit by 
measure unto him" ov yap e/c p.€Tpov did<DO~iv 6 Geo? to 7rv€vp.a. 

Here 6 Geos, answering to the word " God " in the last 
clause, is bracketed by Lachmann, and omitted by Teschen- 
dorf, Meyer, and Alford, as also by Mr. Norton ; Griesbach 
marks it as probably spurious. De Wette, Meyer, and 
Alford suppose that 6 Qeos (understood) is the subject of 
&'6Wi, so that the omission would make no difference in the 
sense. Mr. Norton, however, regards " He whom God has 
sent," the Messiah, as the subject, and translates, " He gives 
not the spirit by measure." See his note. 

(6.) Acts xvi. 7. "After they were come to Mysia, 
they essayed to go into Bithynia ; but the Spirit suffered 
them not." 

Here, instead of to wvcdfia, "the Spirit," the best manu 
scripts and versions, with other authorities, read to Trvevfia 
'irjo-ov, " the spirit of Jesus." This reading is adopted by 
Griesbach, Knapp, Schott, Tittmann, Vater, Scholz, Lach- 
mann, Hahn, Theile, Tischendorf, and Alford ; also by De 
Wette, Meyer, Mr. Norton, and many others. See before, 
p. 225, et seqq. 

(7.) Romans ix. 5. "Whose are the fathers, and of 
whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, 
God blessed for ever. Amen." The Greek is as follows : 

&v oi 7rcn epes, kcu e£ fav 6 Xpio~TOS to Kara adpKa • 6 wv eVi irav* 
t<ov ©cos, €v\oyr}TOS els tovs ala>vas> 9 A/itjv, 

If the remarks which have been before made (pp. 207 - 
212, note) on this much controverted text are correct, the 
original is grammatically ambiguous, admitting of at least 
three different constructions; — 1. that of the Common 
Version, according to which the last clause, 6 &v in\ ttclvtm, 



NOTE C. 471 

etc., refers to Christ ; — 2. that of Mr. Norton, according 
to which it relates to God, the Apostle, in enumerating the 
privileges of the Jews, mentioning as their last great dis- 
tinction the fact that God himself had presided over all 
their concerns in a particular manner ; (the literal render- 
ing of the words being, " He who was over all [was] God, 
blessed for ever";) — and 3. that of many eminent Ger- 
man critics, who regard the clause as a doxology, translr t- 
ing, " God, who is over all, be blessed for ever." 

Ihis passage cannot, with strict propriety, be introduced 
here, as there are no various readings of any consequence ; 
but as involving a question of punctuation, it is not wholly 
unconnected with the subject of this note. It has already 
been mentioned, that the punctuation adopted by Mr. Norton 
and many other interpreters, as well as by Lachmann and 
Tischendorf among the critical editors, is found not only in 
Gome manuscripts in cursive letters, but also in the cele- 
brated Ephrem manuscript. I have since observed that a 
stop is also placed after adpica in the Alexandrine manu- 
script, as edited by Woide. The Alexandrine and Ephrem 
manuscripts are the two oldest Greek manuscripts of the 
New Testament in which there is any kind of punctuation, 
the Vatican having no stops a prima manu. The single 
point, or very short line, used in the earliest manuscripts 
where any marks of this kind appear, denotes a pause 
sometimes answering in length only to our comma, but 
usually equivalent to a colon or a period. Manuscript 
authority in a case of this kind is really of no impor- 
tance ; but some writers have laid stress on the supposed 
want of it as an objection to the punctuation adopted by 
Mr. Norton. 

The orthodox Fathers who have quoted the passage, and 
the authors of the ancient versions, refer the clause to 
Christ ; but it is not strange that they should give to am- 

44* 



172 APPENDIX. 

biguous language the interpretation most favorable to their 

theological opinions. 

It may be worth while to mention, that Mr. Jowett, now 
Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Oxford, in 
his recent work on the Epistles of Paul to the Thessalo- 
nians, Galatians, and Romans, adopts the punctuation of 
Lachmann and Teschendorf, and translates, " God, who is 
over all, is blessed for ever. Amen." 

But supposing it to have been shown that the last part 
of this verse may grammatically refer to God as well as to 
Christ, is there any philological reason, it may be asked, 
for preferring the former construction to the latter? In 
respect to this point, one who has any doubt on the subject 
may examine the use of the word Geo?, " God," first in this 
Epistle, and then in the other Epistles of St. Paul ; noting 
the examples, if he can discover any, in winch it is applied 
to Christ, and also those in which it is applied to a being 
clearly distinguished from Christ, as in 1 Corinthians iii. 23 ; 
viii. 6 ; xi. 3 ; xv. 24, 28 ; 1 Timothy ii. 5, &c. He will 
find in the Epistles of Paul, not including the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, more than Jive hundred instances of the use of 
the word in question ; and he will also find, I believe, that 
there is not among them all a single clear and unequivocal 
example of its application to Christ. But if this be the 
case, the presumption is very strong that it is not so applied 
here. The argument rests, it will be perceived, not on the 
inconsistency of the Trinitarian construction with the the- 
ology of St. Paul as gathered from his other writings, — 
that is another weighty consideration, — but on its incon- 
sistency with his habitual or uniform use of language. 

(8.) Romans xiv. 10. " For we shall all stand before 
the judgment-seat of Christ." 

Here, instead of Xpiarov, " Christ," the reading eeov, 



NOTE c. 473 

u God," is adopted by Lachmann, Teschendorf, Alford, and 
Tregelles, as also by Meyer and others. It is to be ob- 
served, that the Vatican and Ephrem manuscripts agree 
with the other leading uncial manuscripts in the latter 
reading, though this fact was not known to Griesbach and 
Scholz. 

Supposing the common reading to be correct, some Trini- 
tarians have inferred the deity of Christ from a comparison 
of this verse with the two following. In respect to this 
point, it may be sufficient to refer to Acts xvii. 31 ; Ro- 
mans ii. 16. See also before, p. 68, note, and p. 285. 

(9.) Romans xv. 29. " And I am sure that, when I 
come unto you, I shall come in the fulness of the blessing 
of the gospel of Christ." 

The words tov elayyeXlov tov, corresponding to "of the 
gospel," are bracketed by Vater as doubtful, and are omit- 
ted by Griesbach, Schott, Scholz, Lachmann, Theile, Tisch- 
endorf, Alford, Tregelles, and Meyer. De Wette regards 
them as probably spurious. 

(10.) Romans xv. 32. "That I may come to you with 

joy by the will of God," dia Be^TjjjLaTos Oeov. 

Lachmann reads dia BeXrjpaTos Kvplov 'Itjo-oS, " by the will 
of the Lord Jesus" This reading is supported by only one 
manuscript, the Vatican ; though a few authorities have 
the words Xpio-rov 'Irjcrov, " Christ Jesus," instead of Ocov, 
"God." 

(11.) 1 Corinthians x. 9. "Neither let us tempt Christ, 
as some of them also tempted," &c. 

Here, for tov Xpio-rov, " Christ," or " the Anointed One," 
the reading tov Kvpiov, " the Lord/' is adopted by Lach- 
mann, Meyer, and Alford, as also by Wetstein, Arc! bishop 



474 APPENDIX. 

Newcomc, Rtickeit, Norton, and others. Griesbach (in 
his manual edition) and Knapp mark it as of equal author- 
ity with Xpio-rov. Compare Griesbach's Symbolae Criticae, 
II. 114. 

"As some of them also tempted," Ka6a>s ical rives clvtup 
€7r€ipaaav. Kat, " also," is omitted by Lachmann, Tischen- 
dorf, Meyer, and Alford, is marked by Griesbach as proba- 
bly spurious, and bracketed by Vater. 

Archbishop Newcome observes, " If we read Xpiorov, the 
sense is, ' Nor let us tempt, try, prove, provoke Christ 
now, as some of them did God at that time.' " * The pas- 
sage is thus understood by many Trinitarian commen- 
tators; but others, supplying the word "him" instead of 
" God " after " tempted," suppose that Paul represents 
Christ as the being described in Numbers xxi. 5, 6, as 
tempted by the Israelites in the wilderness. 

(12.) 1 Corinthians xv. 47. "The second man is the 
Lord from heaven." 

'O Kvpios, " the Lord," is here marked by Griesbach as 
probably spurious, bracketed by Vater, and omitted by 
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, and Alford, as also by 
Ruckert, De Wette, Mr. Norton, and others. 

(13.) 2 Corinthians iv. 14. "Knowing that he which 
raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus." 

Instead of &a 'irjaov, " by Jesus," the reading avv 'i^o-ou, 
"with Jesus," is adopted by Lachmann, Theile. Tischen- 
dorf, Meyer, Alford, Ruckert, and De Wette. 

(14.) Ephesians iii. 9. " God, who created all things 
by Jesus Christ." 

The words Bia 'Irjcrov Xptcrrov, " by Jesus Christ," are 
marked by Knapp and Vater as doubtful, and are rejected 



NOTE c. 475 

Dy Griesbach, Schott, Tittmann, Scholz, Lachmann, Hahn, 
Theile, Teschendorf, Olshausen, De Wette, Meyer, Mr. 
Norton, and others. 

(15.) Ephesians v. 21. "Submitting yourselves one to 
another in the fear of God," iv <£o/3a> Beoi>. 

The reading iv <f>6j3(p Xpiarov, " in the fear of Christ" is 
adopted by Griesbach, Knapp, Schott, Tittmann, Vater, 
Scholz, Lachmann, Hahn, Theile, Tischendorf, Meyer, 
and De Wette. 

(1 6.) Philippians iii. 3. " For we are the circum 
cision, which worship God in the spirit," ol irvevfian Oe<p 
\arpevoPT€S. 

Matthaei, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, and 
Wiesinger read Qeov for eea>. So also Wetstein. Sup- 
posing this reading to be genuine, the literal translation 
will be, "who worship (or pay religious service) in (or 
through) the Spirit of God." The words also grammati- 
cally admit of the rendering, " who worship the Spirit of 
God"; and so Granville Sharp translates.* But this 
interpretation introduces an idea so foreign from the con- 
text, to mention no other objection, that Mr. Sharp has had 
few, if any, followers. 

(17.) Philippians iv. 13. "I can do all things through 
Christ which strengthened me." 

The word Xpio-nS, " Christ," is bracketed as doubtful by 
Knapp and Yater, and omitted by Griesbach, Schott, 
Scholz, Lachmann, Theile, Tischendorf, Meyer, Conybeare 
and Howson, and others. If it is omitted, the translation 
will be, " I can do (or bear) all things through Him who 
strengthens me." 

* Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, &c, pp. 33, 34, 3d ed. 



476 APPENDIX. 

(18.) Colossians ii. 2, 3. " To the acknowledgment oi 
the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ ; in 
whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," 

€IS €7T iy VGKTIV TOV flVO~TT]ploV TOV 06OV KCU TTCLTpOS KOL TOV XpLCTTQV, 

iv co eidi ndvTes oi Br)o~avpo\ rrjs crocfiias kclL ttjs yvaxretos ano- 

KpV(f)Ol. 

The words kol narpos kcu rod XptoroG, " and of the Father, 
and of Christ," are marked as doubtful by Knapp, and 
omitted by Griesbach, Schott, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischen- 
dorf, Olshausen, De Wette, Conybeare and Howson, Pro- 
fessor Eadie, Mr. Norton (see p. 297), and others. 

Lachmann, Meyer, Steiger, Huther, and Granville Penn 
adopt the reading rov fivarrjpLov tov Qeov XpLo-Tov, which ad- 
mits, grammatically, of different interpretations. It may 
mean, 1. "of the mystery of the God of Christ" (comp. 
Ephes. i. 17) ; so Huther and Meyer; or, 2. "of the mys- 
tery of God, namely, Christ," the word " Christ " bein£ in 
apposition with "mystery" (comp. Col. i. 27). Steiger 
understands Xpiorov to be in apposition with Qeov, but, to 
justify his interpretation, the Greek, as De Wette and 
Olshausen remark, should be tov Xpio-Tov eeoO, and not tov 

QcOV XpKTTOV. 

Theile reads, tov p.vo~rr]piov tov Qeov nciTpos tov XpicTToVy 
" of the mystery of God, the Father of Christ." 

Whichever of these readings is genuine, iv «, " in whom," 
or " in which," in the last clause, should probably be under- 
stood as referring to fivo-Trjplov. So Grotius, Hammond, 
Bengel, Schleusner, De Wette, Meyer, and others explain 
the words, and Professor Eadie translates, — " to the full 
knowledge of the mystery of God, in which all the treas- 
ures of wisdom and knowledge are laid up." 

The meaning of the word translated " mystery " in the 
Common Version would be better conveyed to most read- 
ers by the term " new doctrine," or " new religion." 



NOTE C. 



477 



^19.) Colossians iii. 13. "Even as Christ forgave you, 
so also do ye." 

Here, instead of 6 Xp«rr<k, " Christ," the reading 6 Kvptos, 
"the Lord," is adopted by Lachmann, Teschendorf, Ols- 
hausen, and Meyer. 

(20.) Colossians iii. 15. "And let the peace of God 
rule in your hearts." 

" The peace of Christ " is the reading adopted by Gnes- 
bach, Knapp, Schott, Tittmann, Vater, Scholz, Lachmann, 
Hahn, Theile, Tischendorf, Meyer, and De Wette. 

(21.) 2 Thessalonians ii. 8. "Whom the Lord shall 
consume with the breath of his mouth." 

For 6 Kvptos, " the Lord," Griesbach, Knapp, Tittmann, 
Schott (in his 3d ed., 1825), Scholz, Lachmann, Hahn, 
Theile, and Liinemann read 6 wpios 'Irjarovs, "the Lord 
Jesus." But Matthaei, Pelt, Schott (in his Commentary, 
1834), Tischendorf, De Wette, and others, retain the com- 
mon reading, regarding 'Itjo-ovs as a gloss. 

(22.) 1 Peter iii. 15. "But sanctify the Lord God in 
your hearts." 

Here, instead of Ocov, " God," the reading Xpio-rov, 
" Christ," is adopted by Lachmann, Theile, Tischendorf, 
Tregelles, and Huther. Tregelles argues from this reading 
as compared with Isaiah viii. 12, 13, that "the expression 
4 Jehovah of Hosts himself in the prophet finds its New 
Testament exposition as an equivalent in nvpiov tov XpLcrrov, 
i the Lord Christ,' thus marking the divine glory of our 
Lord in the most emphatic manner." * But nothing is 
more common than for the writers of the New Testament 
to borrow the language of the Old to express their own 

* Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, 
p. 235 



478 APPENDIX. 

thoughts, and thus to apply it to very different subjects 
from those to which it relates in its original connection 
See, for example, 1 Peter ii. 9, comp. Exodus xix. 6 ; — 
Romans x. 6-8, comp. Deut. xxx. 12 - 14 ; — Romans 
x. 18, comp. Psalm xix. 4. 

(23.) 1 John iii. 16. " Hereby perceive we the love of 
God, because he laid down his life for us." 

Here the words rov Qeov, u of God," are rejected as spu- 
rious by all modern editors. They are found, so far as is 
known, only in one Greek manuscript, and in the Latin 
Vulgate version. In most editions of the Common Version 
they are now printed in Italics ; but they are not so distin- 
guished in the original edition of 1611. Our translators 
followed Beza and the Complutensian Polyglot in reading 

rov Qeov. 

(24.) Jude 4. " Denying the only Lord God, and our 
Lord Jesus Christ," rov fiovov beairorqv Qeov kcu Kvpiov fjfiav 
*Ir)o~ovv XpioTov apvovpevoi. 

Supposing the common text to be correct, Granville 
Sharp would render, " Denying our only Master, God, and 
Lord, Jesus Christ." (See before, p. 199, note.) But the 
word Qeov, " God," is omitted by Griesbach, Knapp, Schott, 
Tittmann, Vater, Scholz, Lachmann, Hahn, Theile, Tesch- 
endorf, Huther, De Wette, and others. We may then 
translate, " Denying the only Sovereign Lord, and our 
Lord Jesus Christ." Compare Norton's Evidences of the 
Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. II. p. 166. 

(25.) Jude 5. "The Lord, having saved the people out 
of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that be- 
lieved not." 

For 6 Kvpios, " the Lord," the reading 6 'Irjo-ovs, " Jesus/' 
is adopted by Lachmann, and favored by Huther. 



NOTE c. 479 

(26.) Jude 25. "To the only wise God our Savioui, 
be glory and majesty, dominion and power ," &c. 

Here the word <ro<fi<p, " wise," is omitted, and the words 
&ia 'lTjaov Xpio-Tov rov Kvplov r)ficov are inserted after jiovco Qc§ 
cra>Trjpi Tjficoi/, by Griesbach, Knapp, Schott, Tittmann, Yater, 
Scholz, Lachmann, Hahn, Theile, Teschendorf, Huther, 
De Wette, and others. The passage may then be trans- 
lated, " To the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ 
our Lord, be glory and majesty, dominion and power," &c 
See before, p. 305, note. 

(27.) Revelation i. 8. " I am Alpha and Omega, the 
beginning and the ending, saith the Lord," &c. 

Instead of 6 Kvpios, " the Lord," Kvpios 6 Oeos, " the Lord 
God," is adopted by all the modern critical editors who 
have been mentioned in this note, and even by Bloomfield, 
who also remarks, " By most recent commentators these 
words are understood of God the Father? He himself, 
however, explains them as referring to Christ. Professor 
Stuart observes, in his note on the passage, that "the 
weight of external testimony is greatly in favor of Kvpm 
o 0€os," and that, admitting this reading, " it is more facile 
to regard God as the speaker." 

The words, " I am Alpha and Omega," are explained hi 
ch. xxi. 6 and xxii. 13 by " the beginning and the end," 
"the First and the Last." (The words translated "the 
beginning and the ending " in the present passage are an 
interpolation.) Compare Isaiah xli. 4; xliv. 6; xlviii. 12„ 
These expressions have been variously interpreted ; by some, 
as denoting eternity, or unchangeableness ; — but " the be- 
ginning and the end " can hardly mean " without beginning 
and without end " ; — by others, as signifying completeness, 
or perfection. Here, and in ch. xxi. 6, where they are 
also applied to God, they seem rather used to denote th«3 

45 



480 APPENDIX. 

certain accomplishment of his purposes ; that what he has 
begun he will carry on to its consummation. Thus Heng- 
stenberg remarks : " The emphasis is to be laid upon the 
Omega. It is as much as : I am as the Alpha, therefore 
also the Omega. The beginning is surety for the end." * 

The words in question may be understood in a similar 
manner when applied to Christ, as in ch. xxii. 13 ; comp. 
i. 17, ii. 8. Thus Erasmus remarks in his note on John 
viii. 25, as cited by Wilson in his Concessions of Trinita- 
rians : " Christ is called the beginning and the end, because 
he is the beginning and the consummation of the Church, 
which was founded by his first, and will be' completed by 
his second appearance." f So one of the Latin Fathers, 
Fulgentius, says, though he gives other meanings to the 
words : " Principium Christus, quia ipse inchoavit perfici- 
enda ; finis Christus, quia ipse perficit inchoata " ; that is, 
" Christ is the beginning, because he himself commenced 
the work to be accomplished ; Christ is the end, because 
he accomplishes the work begun." { It is, perhaps, in a 
somewhat similar sense that he is called by the author of 
he Epistle to the Hebrews " the Author and Finisher of 
the faith," 6 t?js Trlarecos dpxrjybs kcu TcXeicariJs. § 

(28.) Revelation i. 11. "I am Alpha and Omega, the 
First and the Last; and, What thou seest, write in a 
book," &c. 

Here, the words which precede " What thou seest " ars 
rejected as spurious by all the modern critical editors. 

* "The Revelation of St. John, expounded^" &c., Vol. I. p. 107, 
Ymer. ed. of the Engl, translation. 

t Opp. Tom. VI. col. 376, E. 

X Ad Trasimundum, Lib. n. c. 5 ; in Migne's Patrol Tom. LXV 
ol. 250, C. 

f Hebrews xii. 2. 



NOTE C. 481 

Dr. Doddridge observes, in his note on this verse : " That 
these titles [ u Alpha and Omega," &c] should be repeated 
so soon, in a connection which demonstrates that they are 
given to Christ, will appear very remarkable, whatever 
sense be given to the eighth verse. The argument drawn in 
the preceding note upon it would have been strong, wher- 
ever such a passage as this had been found ; but its imme- 
diate connection with this greatly strengthens it. And I 
cannot forbear recording it, that this text has done more 
than any other in the lUble toward preventing me from 
giving in to that scheme, which would make our Lord Jesus 
Christ no more than a deified creature? 

It is a pity that this excellent man did not take a little 
more pains to distinguish the genuine text of Scripture 
from the corruptions introduced by transcribers. 

(29.) Revelation ii. 7. " To him that overcometh will I 
give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the 
paradise of God." 

Instead of tov Geot), " of God," the reading tov Geov /xov, 
"of my God," is marked by Vater as probable, and is 
adopted by Matthasi, Griesbach, Knapp, Schott, Tittmann, 
Scholz, and Tischendorf. 

(30.) Revelation iii. 2. "I have not found thy works 
perfect before God," ivSmov tov Qcov. 

Here the reading ivamov tov Qeov fxov, " before my God," 
is marked by Vater (in his note on ch. ii. 7) as probable, 
and is received into the text as genuine by all the other 
critical editors of the present century who have been men- 
tioned in this note. 

This completes the view proposed of passages whose 
supposed bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity is affected 



482 APPENDIX. 

by various readings of the original text. I refer, it will be 
understood, to readings which have been adopted in any 
of the leading critical editions published within the present 
century. In a large majority of these passages, the varia- 
tion of reading seems to me to be of little or no conse- 
quence, so far as the doctrine in question is concerned ; 
but I wished to include all where it had been, or might 
be, thought of any importance. I have certainly endeav- 
ored to omit nothing which a Trinitarian might regard as 
favoring his belief. 



INDEX 



PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE QUOTED tlH BE- 
FERRED TO 



GENESIS. Page 

iii. 5, 22 300, n. 

iv. 25 314, n. 

xi. 7 344 

xiv. 2, 3 343 

xvii. 4, 5 238 

xviii., xix 341-343 

xxvii. 29 211, n. 

EXODUS. 

iv. 16 300, n. 

iv. 22 219, n. 

vii. 1 300, n. 

xiv. 31 218, n. 

xv. 13, 17 237 

xix. 6 478 

xxi. 6 300, n. 

xxii. 8, 9, 28 300, n. 

NUMBERS. 

xxi. 5, 6 474 

DEUTERONOMY. 

vi. 4 182 

x. 17 300, n. 

xi. 13-15 255, n. 

xxix. 2, 5, 6 255, n. 

xxx. 12-14, 478 

xxxi. 22, 23 256, n. 



JOSHUA. 



xxii. 22 



300, n. 



1 SAMUEL. 

xii. 18 218, n. 

xv. 28 237 

xxv. 32, 33 217, n. 

xxviii. 13, 14 300, n. 

2 SAMUEL. 

▼ii. 14 219, n. 

45 • 



2 kings. Page 

xiii. 5 305, E< 



1 CHRONICLES. 

xvii. 13 219, n. 

xxviii. 6 219, n. 

xxix. 20 ...... . 218, n. 

NEHEMIAH. 

ix. 27 305, n. 

PSALMS. 

viii. 5 300, n. 

xix. 4 478 

xxxvii. 11 180 

xiv. 1 92 

xiv. 6, 7 . . 300, n. 301, n. 302, n. 

1.1 300, n. 

lxviii. 19 (lxvii. 20, Sept.) . 210, u. 

Ixxii. 18, 19 217, n. 

lxxviii. 23-25 390 

lxxxii. 1, 6 . . . 300, n. 301, tk. 

lxxxii. 6 221, n. 

cii. 25 214 

cv. 4 217, ii. 

cxix. 46 300, n. 

cxxxvi. 2 300, n. 

cxxxviii. 1, 4 300, n. 

cxxxix. 16 237 



PROVERBS. 

311 

311 

311, 335, n. 356 
92 



i. 20 . . 

iii. 19 . . 

viii. 22 . 

ix. 1 . . 

xxiv. 21 218, n. 



ECCLESIASTES. 

iv. 12 91 



484 



INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. 



isaiah. Page 

vi. 3 182 

vi. 10 298, 299 

vii. 14 255 

viii. 12, 13 477 

ix. 6 . . . . 182, 300, n. 301, n. 

xiii. 9, 10 278, n. 

xix. 20 305, n. 

xxxiv. 4 279, n. 

xl. 3 253 

xli. 4 . tn 

xliii. 11 305 

xliv. 6 479 

xlviii. 12 479 

xlix. 1 237 

JEREMIAH. 

i. 5 246 

xv. 9 279, n. 

EZEKIEL. 

xxxi. 11 300, n. 

xxxii. 7, 8 278, n. 

xxxii. 21 301, n. 

DANIEL. 

xi. 36 300, n. 

HOSEA. 

hi. 5 217, n. 

xi. 1 . . . . . . 219, n. 

JOEL 

ii. 30, 31 279, n. 

iii. 15 279, n. 

AMOS. 

viii. 9 279, n. 

OBAPIAH. 

21 305, n. 



iii. 1 



MALACEI. 



253 



TOBIT. 

xi. 13 217, n. 

WISDOM OF SCLOMON. 

vii., viii., x 311 

ix. 1, 2 310,311 

xviii. 15 310 

ECCLES1ASTICUS. 

XXiv. 21 250 



i. 23 . . 

ii. 2, 8, 11 
iii. 3 . 
iii. 11 . 
iv. 17 . 
v. 3 
v. 4, 5 . 
v. 45 . 
viii. 2 . 
i* IS . 
x. 34 . 
xi. 10 . 
xi. 18 . 
xi. 27 . 
xiii. 39 
xiv. 33 
xv. 25 . 
xvi. 19 
xvi. 27 
xvi. 27, 28 
xvii. 17 
xviii. 18 
xviii. 19. 
xviii. 26' 
xix. 16, 17 
xix. 28 
xx. 20 
xx. 23 
xx. 28 
xxiii. 14 
xxiv. 5 
xxiv. 26, 2 
xxiv. 30 
xxiv. 34 
xxiv. 37 - 39 
xxiv. 42-51 
x^iv. 43, 44 

XXV. . . 

xxvii. 35 . 
xxviii. 9, 17 
xxviii. 18 
xxviii. 19 



MATTHEW. 



163 



I, n. 177 
171 



223 



274, 
425, 

5,224, 

445, 



145, 



277 



',n. 
280, 



69, n. 
215-218, 



Pago 

255 

447 

253 

217, a 

176 

179 

180 

220 

447 

447 

270 

253 

143 

209 

421 

447 

447 

145 

306, n. 

281 

426 

145 

273 

447 

446 

292 

447 

292 

193 

433 

243 

278 

403, n 

280 

398, n. 

398, n. 

397, n. 

281 

433 

447 

280 

284 



MARK. 

1. 2, 3 .253 

iv. 33 411 

v. 6 44'< 

vi. 3 75, 248 

vi. 11 433 

viii. 38 306, n, 

x. 17, 18 446 

x. 44 193 

xiii. 6 243 

xiii. 32 61 

xv. 19 447 

xvi. 19 ... . . . 456, a 



INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRU'TURE. 



485 



LUKE. Page 

i. 16, 17 254 

i. 32, 35 ....... . 221, n. 

i. 47 305, n. 

i. 76 253 

lii. 4 253 

vi. 20 162, n. 178 

vi. 35 220, n. 

vii. 27 253 

ix. 26 218, n. 306, n. 

ix. 55. 56 433 

X. 18 420 

xii. 49 270 

xiii. 1 413 

xiv. 10 448 

xiv. 26 144 

xvii. 20, 21 . . . . 275, 423 

xvii. 36 433 

xviii. 18, 19 446 

xviii. 31-34 . . . 422,423 

xxi. 8 243 

xxi. 34,35 398, n. 

xxii. 43, 44 446 

xxiv. 21 395 

xxiv. 52 446, 447 

JOHN. 

i. 1 . . .66, 120, n. 307, etc. 
317, etc. 385 

i. 1-18 324-326 

i. 14 220,313, n. 

i. 18 448-469 

i. 23 253 

i. 51 (al. 52) 274 

iii. 2 391 

iii. 12, 13 246, 391 

iii. 16-21 220, n. 

iii. 17-19 .... 270,271 

iii. 28 243, n. 

iii. 31 207, n. 391 

iii. 34 470 

iii. 35 69, n. 

iv. 26 243, n. 

v. 3, 4 433 

v. 16-30 . . 256,258-268 

v. 17 260 

v. 19 71 

v. 21 261 

v. 22 . . . 66, 69, n. 261, 262 

v. 24 262, 263 

V. 25 264, 265 

V. 26 70 

v. 27 69, n. 265 

v. 28, 29 267, 268 

v. 30 61 

v. 36 71 

v. 45 261, 262 

vi 15 245, n. 247 



john (continued). 
vi. 30, 31 

vi. 31-33,35,38 

vi. 38 . . . . 



247 



vi. 41, 42 

vi. 46 

vi. 47-51 

vi. 51-53 . . . . 182, 

vi. 53 15i,159, 

vi. 57 71, 

vi. 59 - 62 

vi. 61, 62 

vi. 62 

vi. 63 252, 

vi. 64, 68 

vii. 27 

vii. 53-viii. 11 

viii. 24 

viii. 24, 28 

viii. 28, 29 

viii. 44 420, 

viii. 47 ....... 

viii. 52, 53 

viii. 54 

viii. 56 

viii. 56-58 .... 242 
ix. 2 



28, 
86 

16 

30 

34- 

36 

37 
25, 
26 , 
17. 
xii. 27 . 



29. 



. 237, 
. 92, n. 



26 



151, 



xii 



xii. 32 . . 
xii. 40, 41 
xii. 47, 48 
xii. 49, 50 
xiii. 19 . 
xiv. 2, 3 . 
xiv. 8 . . 



298, 

• n, 
'27*2, 



Page 

279 

248 

391 

248 

207, n 

249 

250 

181 

456, n. 

251 

385 

248 

330, n. 

330, n. 

72, n. 
445 
244 
243 

71 
421 
207, n. 
242 

70 
299 
246 
413 
235 
447 
271 
144 
301, n. 
221, a. 

71 
271 
263 
207, n. 

73 
271 
299 
262 
271 

243, -. 
273 
413 



xiv. 9 245 

xiv. 10 71 

xiv. 18, 19 272 

xiv. 24 71 

xiv. 28 61 

xv. 27 330, n. 

xvi. 4 330, n. 

xvi. 17-19 77, 230, a 

xvi. 23 230 

xvi. 30 78 

xvii 61 

xvii. 1 88 

xvii. 1-5 . ... 240 



486 



INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. 



John (continued). Page 

xvii. 3 198 

xvii. 5 65, 392 

xvii. 11 93, n. 

xvii. 21-23 93, n. 

xvii. 22 240 

xvii. 23 241 

xvii. 24 ... . 240, 241, 392 

xviii. 36 423 

xx. 28 299-304 

xx. 29 303, n. 

xx. 31 303, n. 

xxi. 20-23 . . . . 393, 394 



i. 6, 7 . . 
ii. 22-24. 

ii. 36 . . 
iv. 32 . , 



ACTS. 



v. 20 . 
vii. 59 . 
viii. 37 
ix. 5 . 



ix. 14, 21 

x. 42 . . 
xiii. 25 . 
xiii. 30-37 
xiv. 15 . 



XV. 



226, 



xvi. 6-10 . . 

xvi. 7 

xvii. 26 

xvii. 31 . 68, 69, n. 209, n. 

xviii. 15 

Xix. 9, 10 

xx. 28, ... . 159, 184, 

xx. 32 . . 

xxii. 16 

xxii. 17, seqq 

xxiii. 8 

xxiv. 6-8 

xxiv. 11 

xxv. 19 



395 

79 

69, n. 

93, n. 
330, n. 
224 
433 
433 
228 

69, n. 
243, n. 
209, n. 
292 
218, n. 
, 227, n. 
470 
325, n. 
473 
277 
225, n. 
201, n. 
217, n. 
228 
225 
417 
433 
225, n. 
277 



ROMANS. 

i. 1-4 209, n. 

ii. 16 69, n. 473 

iii. 25 455, n. 

iv. 5 159 

iv. 16, 17 239 

iv. 18-20 239, n. 

iv. 24 209, n. 

vi. 3 217, n. 

vi. 4 209, n. 

viii. 2 330, n. 

viii. 5, 8 . 207, n. 

viii. 9-11 268 

viii. 11 ... . 209, n. 



Romans (continued). Pago 

viii. 29, 30 236 

viii. 33, 34 207, n 

ix. 3 208, n. 

ix. 4, 5 206 

ix. 5 . 68, 203 - 214, 470 - 472 

ix. 8 208, n. 

x. 6-8 478 

x. 9 209, n. 

x. 12 207, n. 

x. 18 478 

xi. 33 . . 295, n. 

xiii. 11, 12 400 

xiv. 10 408, 472 

xv. 29 473 

xv. 32 473 

1 CORINTHIANS. 

i. 2 228 

i. 4-8 400, 401 

i. 10 146 

i. 13 217, n. 

i. 17 289 



i. 22 279, n. 

i. 26 207, n. 

ii. 2 289 

iii. 8 93, n. 

iii. 23 472 

iv. 5 400 

vi. 14 209, n. 

vi. 17 122 

viii. 6 472 

x. 2 217, u 

x. 9 473 

x. 18 208, n. 

xi. 3 472 

xii. 13 217, n. 

xv. 15 209, n. 

xv. 18 268 

xv. 23, 24 399 

xv. 24-28 . . . 69,408,472 

xv. 47 474 

xv. 47, 48 207, n. 

xv. 50 408 

xv. 51, 52 400 



i. 21 . 

iii. 14 . 

iii. 17 . 

iv. 14 . 

v. 5 . 

v. 10 . 

v. 17 . 

vi. 12 . 

vii. 15 . 

viii. 9 . 

xi. 31 . 



2 CORINTHIANS. 

. . . 209, n. 
. . . 207, n. 
... 27 
209, n. 474 
207, n. 209, n. 
408 
291 



146 
143 
193 
213, 214 



INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. 



48'' 



2 COR. (continued). Page 

xii. 8 224, 225 

xiii. 4 209, n. 

GALATIANS. 

i. 1 209, n. 225, n. 

i. 11, 12 225, n. 

i. 15 237 

iii. 27, 28 269 

iv. 23, 29 208, n. 

vi. 15 291 

EPHESIASS. 

i. 3, 4 236 

i. 15-23 293,294 

i. 17 476 

i. 17-23 69, n. 

i. 19, 20 209, n. 

i. 23 296,297 

a. 7 195 

ii. 10 291 

iii. 9 474 

iii. 11 195 

iii. 14-19 . . . . 295,296 

iii. 17 268 

iv. 4, 5 207, n. 

iv. 11-13 296 

iv. 20, 21 268 

iv. 24 291 

v. 5 199, n. 201, n. 

v. 21 475 

vi. 10 217, n. 



PHILIPPICS. 

.6 401 

. 8, 21 269 

i. 5-8 . . .61,66,191-193 

i. 9 74 

i. 9 - 11 69, n. 

i. 12 143 

.16 330, n. 

ii. 3 475 



400 
475 



COLOSSIANS. 

i. 9-20 289-293 

i. 15-17. . 61, 66,291-293 

i. 19 294 

i. 27 476 

ii. 1 - 10 297 

ii. 2, 3 476 

ii. 6, 7 268 

ii. 12 209, n. 

ii. 17 207, n. 

iii. 13 268. 477 

iii. 16 . . . ... 477 



1 THESSALONIANS. Page 

i. 10 209, a 

iii. 11, 12 226 

iv. 13-18 . . . . 395,396 
v. 1-6 397,398 

2 THESSALONIANS. 

i. 4-10 398,399 

i. 12 201, n, 

ii 399 

ii. 8 477 

ii. 12 201, a 

ii. 16, 17 226, 227 

1 TIMOTHY. 

i. 1 . 305, n* 

ii. 3 305, n. 

ii. 5 472 

iii. 14-16 . . . . 188-19?* 

iii. 16 184,185-191 

iv. 10 305, n, 

v. 21 201, n. 218, n. 

vi. 14-16 306, n. 

2 TIMOTHY. 

i. 8, 9 236, 237 

iv. 1 201, n. 408 



i.1,2. 



TITUS. 

.... 237 
l. 3 305, n, 

ii. 10 305, n. 

ii. 13 201, n. 203, n. 305, n. 306, n. 
iii. 4-6 305, n. 

HEBPvEWS. 

i. 1-5 . . . . 67,195,196 

i. 5 219 

i. 6 447, n. 

i. 8, 9, 61, 301, n 

i. 10-12 68,214 

ii. 14 203, n. 

ii. 16 203, n. 

iii. 4 209, n. 

iv. 12, 13 331, n. 

x. 25 401 

xi. 3 194, 195, n. 

xi. 19 239, n. 

xii. 2 74 

xiii. 8, 9 269 



v. 8 



JAMES. 



1 PETER. 



U. 9 . 

iii. 15 
iv. 7 



400 



478 
47T 
401 



488 



INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. 



2 PETER. Page 

i. 1 201, n. 305, n. 

iii. 3-13 404,405 

1 JOHN. 

i. 1-3 330 

ii. 7 330, n. 

ii. 12 266, n. 

li. 18 401 

ii. 20 139 

ii. 24 330, n. 

iii. 5, 7 266, n. 

iii. 11 330, n. 

iii. 16 266, n. 478 

V. 7, 8 .... 63, 184, 185 

V. 11 197, n. 

V. 18-21 . * . • 196-198 

2 JOHN. 

7 .i 197, n. 



jude. Pago 

4 . . . . 201, n. 203, n. 478 

5 478 

25 305,n. 479 



i. 1, 3 . 
i. 4, 5 . 
i. 7 . 
i. 8 . 
i. 11 . 
i- 17 . 
ii. 8 . 
iii. 2 . 
iii. 9 . 
xix. 13 
xxi. 6. 
xxii. 10, 12 
xxii. 13 
xxii. 20 



EEVEULTION. 



402,403 

218, n 
, . 403 
,479,480 

480 

480 

430 

481 

447 

331, n. 

479 
. 404 
479,480 

404 



GENERAL INDEX. 



Acta Disputationis Archelai cum 
Manete, oq John i. 18; 461, 467. 

Adam Kadmon of the Cabalists, 350. 

Addison, on Milton, 150. 

Adimantus the Manichaean, on John 
i. 18; 465. 

jEons of the Gnostics, 336, n. 350, 
368, 369. 

Aikin, Dr. John, on Milton, 150. 

Alcuin, on John i. 18; 450, 452, n. 
466. 

Alexander of Alexandria, 93, n. 461, 
467. 

Alford, his edition of the Greek Tes- 
tament, 440-442. Referred to, 
446, 447, 451, 470, etc. 

" All things," restricted meaning of 
the term, 140. 

Allegorical interpretation of the Old 
Testament, 418, 419. 

Alter, his critical labors. 439. 

Ambrose, on John i. 18; 465. 

America, state of theology and re- 
ligion in, 17, 18. 

American Bible Union, 438. 

American Tract Society, 69, n. 

Ammon, C. F., on Rom. ix. 5 ; 212, 
n. 

Ancyra, Second Synod of (A. D. 
358), on John i. 18 ; 451, n. Quot- 
ed, 454. 

Andreas Cretensis, on John i. 18; 
464. 

"Angel of Jehovah," 183, n. 

Angels, Jewish conceptions concern- 
ing, 274, 275. 

Animal soul (anima) distinguished 
by some from the intellect or 
spirit, 110, 111, n. ; but not by 
Tertullian, 115. 

Antichrist, 401. 

Antinomians, 159 



Antioch, Third Svnod at (A. D. 
269), 461. Fifth Synod at (A V. 
341), 460, n. 

Apocalypse, an early work, but not 
written by St. John, 402, 409. 
Its character and purpose, 402 - 
404. Speaks of the second com- 
ing of Christ as near at hand, 
ibid. 

Apollinaris, 111, 117, 123, 128. 

Apostles, the, miraculous inter- 
course of our Saviour with, after 
his removal from the earth, 225 - 
227. Their expectations concern- 
ing his visible return, 284, 393 - 
410. Divinely enlightened re- 
specting tht "essential truths of 
Christianity, 412; comp. 198. 
Why this illumination was not 
further extended, 410-427. 

Apostolical Constitutions, 468. 

Aquila, his version of Is. ix. 5 ; 301, 
n. 

Archelaus, on John i. 18; 461, 467. 

Arians, 111, 12S ? 366, 468. 

Aristotle, 161, n. 176. 

Arius, 450, 459, 460, n. 

Article, the Greek, Middleton's Doc- 
trine of, examined, 199 - 203, n. 

" Ascending to heaven," figurative 
meaning of the expression, 246, 
386. 

Asterius, 468. 

Athanasian cre?d, 171, 172. 

Athanasius, 43, 91, 122, 126, 171. 
Quoted, 363. On John i. 18, 452, 
n. 462. Psrwd-Athanasius, 462. 

Athenagoras, or: the Logos, 358, 359, 
360. 

Attributes of (Vd hypostatized, or 
conceived of as proper persons, 
by Philo, 31" - 316, 336-349; by 



490 



GENERAL INDEX. 



the Gnostics, 334 - 336. n. 350 ; by 
the Cabalists, 350-352; by the 
Hindoos, 352, 353; and by the 
Christian Fathers, 355-367. As 
persons regarded as far inferior to 
God, 365, 366. 
Augustine, 332, 363, 465. Quoted, 
97,373. 

Bacon, Lord, on the Incarnation, 

130. 
Barnes, Albert, on Acts xx. 28; 

184, n. 
Basil of Seleucia, 450, 459, 460, n. 
Basil the Great, 450, 451, n. 
Basnage, quoted, 98, 99, 100, 350, 

351. 
Baumgarten, on Acts xx. 28 ; 184, 

n. 
Baumgarten-Crusius, on Rom. ix. 

5; 212, n. 
Beausobre, quoted, 101, 102. 
Belief of a manifest contradiction 

impossible, 367 ; comp. 61, 62, 85, 

86, 171. 
Bengel, 439, 476. 
Benson, George, on 1 Tim. iii. 16; 

189, n. 
Bentley on the identity of the Chris- 
tian and Platonic Trinity, 103, 

104; quoted, 150, 434, 438. _ 
Berriman, John, on 1 Tim. iii. 16; 

189, n. 
Beza, his editions of the Greek Tes- 
tament, 436, 437, 478. 
Biblical Repository. See Mayer, 

Stuart. 
Birch, A., his critical labors, 439. 
Birch, T., his Life of Tillotson, 172, 

n. 
Blackwood's Magazine, quoted, 11. 
Bloomfield, on Rev. i. 8; 479. 
Bohme, C. F., on Rom. ix. 5; 210, 

n. 
Brahma, 352. 
Browne, Sir Thomas, on witchcraft, 

417, n. 
Bull, Bishop, quoted, 44 - 46. 
Bunyan, 402. 
Burke, Edmund, 32, n. Quoted, 

141, 142, 157, 158. 
Byron, Lord, 11. 

Cabalists, speculations of the, 3§Q 

' -352. 

Caesarius, or Psewfo-Caesarius, 463 

464. 
w Calling on the name of Christ,' ' 



meaning of thr, 3xpression> 228 

229. 

Calvin, 92. 301, n. On John x. 30; 
92, n. 

Campbell, Dr. George, on Luke 
xxiv. 52 ; 447, 448, n. 

Cave, Dr. William, 453. 

Chalcedon, Council of (A. D. 451), 
129. 

Chalcidius, 101, n. 

Chalmers, Dr. Thomas, criticised, 
147, 160-163, n. 

Christian Disciple, referred to, 3. 

Christian Examiner, referred to, 18, 
n. 43, n. 183, n. 189, n. 194, n. 
296, n. 329, n. 333, n. 342, n. 354, 
n. 

Christianity, present stute of opir* 
ion and feeling respecting, 5 - 15. 
Importance of correct opinion? 
concerning, 20 - 29, 378 - 380. 
Obstacles to the spread of the 
truth, 36-38. Blended with for- 
eign opinions even by the ear- 
liest Christian Fathers, 119, 120. 
What it teaches, 375, 376. lis 
inestimable value, 377 - 379. But 
its authority and value are gODH 
when it is not regarded as a di- 
vine revelation, 16, 17. 

Christ. See Jesus Christ. 

Chrysostom, 267, n. 463. 

Church of England, service of, 172. 

Cicero, quoted, 12, 13, 160, n. 

Clarke, Adam, on Acts xx. 28 ; 184, 
n. 

Clarke, Dr. Samuel, 43, n. Quoted, 
357-359. 

Claudianus Mamertus, 452, n. 

Clement of Alexandria, 358, 450, 
451, n. 453, 467. Quoted, 96, 97, 
113, 237, 361, 453, n. Loosenes3 
of his citations from Scripture, 
455, 456. On the incarnation of 
the Logos, 112-114. 

Clement of Rome, quoted, 208, n. 

Clementine Homilies, quoted, 221, n. 

Colossians, Epistle to the, 288. 

" Coming from heaven " or from 
God, figurative meaning of the 
expression, 386, 391. 

" Coming " of Christ, not literal and 
personal, but figurative, 230, je. 
272, 274-282, 423. Our Sav- 
iour's language concerning it 
misunderstood by his Aposilct, 
284,393-410. 

Common English Version of tlu 



GENERAL INDEX. 



491 



New Testament. 437. Mistrans- 
lations in, 146, 191, etc., 203, n., 
and elsewhere. 

Communication of Properties, doc- 
trine of the, 124. 

Complutensian Polyglot, 434-436, 
478. 

Constantine, the Emperor, 97. 

Constantinople, Council of A. D. 
381), 43, 123. 

Conybeare and Howson, 207, n. 306, 
n. 475, 476. 

Cosri, the book, quoted, 238, n. 

Councils. See Ancyra, Antioch, 
Chalcedon, Constantinople, Ephe- 
sus, Lateran, Nice. 

u Create," use of the word to denote 
a moral renovation, 291. 

Cudworth, quoted, 98, 99, 105, 348, 
349. Study of his work on the 
Intellectual System recommend- 
ed, 99, n. 

Curetonian Svriac version, 450, n. 

Cyril of Alexandria, 126-128, 450, 
"451, n. 456, 457. Quoted, 458, n. 
Pseudo-Cyril, 463. 

Demoniacal possession, 417. 

Damascenus. See Joannes Dama- 
ecenus. 

Darkness. Figures representing a 
day of utter darkness used to de- 
scribe great national calamities, 
278, 279. 

Davidson, Dr. Samuel, 184, n. 189, 
n. 446. 

Davy, Sir Humphry, 14. 

u Dead," the, metaphorical use of 
the term, 264. 

Death, Christian view of, 263. Use 
of the term to denote the punish- 
ment of sin, 262, 263. 

"Descending from heaven," figura- 
tive meaning of the expression, 
246, 247, 386, 391. 

Devil. See Satan. 

De Wette. See Wette. 

Didymus of Alexandria, 450, 453, 
454, n. 455. 

Dioscurus, 128. 

u Discourse," use of the word in the 
sense of M reason," 369, 370. 

Docetse, 114. 

Doctrina Orientalis, 369, 453. 

Doddridge. 306, n. On Rev. i. 11; 
481. 

* Double Nature " of Christ See 
Hypostatic Union. 

46 



Drummond, Sir William, 13. 

Eadie, Professor John, on Col. ii. 2, 
3; 476. 

Eclectic Review, 187, n. 189, n. 
190, n. 

Education, moral and religious, 22- 
25. 

Eichhorn, 188, n. 

El, use of the word, 300, n. 

Eleazar, or Eliezer, Rabbi, 238, n. 

Elohim, use of the word, 300, n. 

Elzevir editions of the Greek Tes- 
tament, 437. 

Emanations, Cabalistic doctrine of, 
350-352. 

Emlyn, on Heb. i. 10-12; 214, n. 

England, state of theology in, 15. 

Ephesians, Epistle to the, 288. 

Ephesus, General Council of (A. D. 
431), 127.— Another Council at 
(A. D. 449), the "Council of 
Banditti," 128. 

Ephrem the Syrian, 456. 
j Epiphanius, 450, 451, 452, n. Quot- 
ed, 454. Looseness of his cita- 
tions from Scripture, 455, 456. 

Erasmus, 93, n. 189, n. 197, n. 210. 
n. 303, n. 306, n. His editions of 
the Greek Testament, 434, 435. 
Quoted, 480. 

Error, language of, how far it may 
be used, 420 - 422. 

Errors of the Apostles, why not all 
corrected by our Saviour, 410, etc. 

Eunomius, 450, 459, 460, n. 

Eusebius of Cassarea, 93. n. 450, 
452, n. 455, n. 461. 467. Quoted, 
97, 213. 454, n. 462, n. 

Eustathius of Antioch, 461, 462, 
467. 

Euthvmius Zigabenus, 267, n. 464. 

Eutyches, 128. 

Excerpta Theodoti, 451, n. 

Fathers, the earlier, regarded the 
Father alone as the Supreme 
God, and the Son and Spirit as 
far inferior, 42, 43, 45, 208-213, 
365, 366; comp. 93, n. 113, 116, 
120, n. 204, 205, 232, 233. Blend- 
ed their philosophy with Chris- 
tianity, 94, 95, 119/120, 355, 374. 
Borrowed their doctrine of the 
Logos from Philo, 94, 316, 334, 
338, 355. Opinions of the Fa- 
thers concerning the Logos, 358 - 
373; on the Incarnation, 108- 



192 



GENERAL INDEX. 



123. Strange arguments of some 
of them for the Trinity, 91, 92. 
Use of their quotations* from the 
New Testament in textual criti- 
cism, 439, 440. Their reading of 
John i. 18; 450-467. Date of 
the principal, 453-466. 
Faustinas, on John i. 18; 465. 
' Favor of Christ," the, 226. 

Ferrandus, 450, 459, 461, n. 

Flatt, J. F. von, on Rom. ix. 5; 
207, n. 

Flavian, 128. 

Fleury, referred to, 106. 

Food, metaphors derived from tak- 
ing, 249, 250. 

Foster, John, quoted, 158. 

France, lesson taught by its relig- 
ious history, 29. 

Fritzsche, C. F. A., on Rom. ix. 5 ; 
210, n. 

Fulgentius, 450, 451, 452, n. 458. 
Quoted, 459, n. On "the begin- 
ning and the end," as a title of 
Christ, 480. 

Gale, Theophilus, on the Plato- 
nism of the Fathers, 101. 

Gaudentius, 450, 459, 461, n. 

General Repository and Review, re- 
ferred to, 105, n. 

German philosophy, 14. 

German theology, 16, 252. 

Gesenius, on Isa. ix. 5; 183, n. 

Gibbon, quoted, 95, 96, 129. 

Gieseler, referred to, 416, n. 

Gill, Dr. John, quoted, 66. 

Glanvill, quoted, 370. His " Sad- 
ducismus Triumphatus," 417, 
n. 

Glockler, on Rom. ix. 5; 210, n. 

Gnostics, 112, 117, 334, n. 337, 361, 
368. 

God, revealed by Christianity in 
his paternal character, 375, 376. 
Figurative language used to de- 
scribe the operations of, 254, 255, 
886-388. Use of the word " God " 

* as a common name, 120, 121, 
300, 301, 314, 319, 320, 365, n. 
468. 

Goethe, 11-13. 

Government, civil, its legitimate 
purpose and best form, 25. 

Gray, quoted, on Milton, 150. 

Greek New Testament, various read- 
ings of, 432, 433, etc. History of 
the printed text. 434 - 445. Prin- 



cipal editions of, published in this 

century, 440-445. 
Green, T. S., his Grammar of the 

New Testament Dialect referred 

to, 203, n. 
Greenwood, on John xx. 28; 303, n. 
Gregorv Nazianzen, or of Nazian- 

zum, 450, 452, n. 463. On the 

deity of the Holy Spirit, 43, 44. 

On the polytheism of the "too 

orthodox," 54. 
Gregorv Nvssen, or of Nyssa, 450, 

452, n. Quoted, 455, n. 458, 459, 

n. 
Griesbach, his critical labors, 439- 

441. On the Received Text, 

438. Referred to, 184, n. 185, 

189, 213, n. 305, n. 443, 444, 445, 

451, 470, etc. 

Grotius, 93, n. 184, n. 189, n. 197, n. 

301, n. 306, n. 476. 
Guericke, or Guerike, 454, n. 455. 

Hackett, Professor H. B., on Acts 
xx. 28; 184,n. 

Hahn, 305, n. Untrust worthiness 
of his edition of the Greek Testa- 
ment, 443-445. 

Haldane, Robert, on Rom. ix. 5; 
212, n. 

Hammond, on Col. ii. 2, 3; 476. 

" He," use of the pronoun without 
an antecedent, 266, n. 

"Heaven," proper meaning of the 
word, as we use it, 388, 389. 
"To ascend to heaven," " to be 
in heaven," " to descend from 
heaven," " to come from heaven," 
figurative meaning of the expres- 
sions, 246-248, 386, 391. See 
Kingdom of Heaven. 

Hebrews, Epistle to the, not written 
bv St. Paul, 194, n. 

Heihrichs, 184, n. 189, n. 

Henderson, Dr. Ebenezer, on 1 Tim. 
iii. 16, 187, n.; his errors, 189, n. 

Hengstenberg, 183, n. On Rev. i. 
8; 480. 

Heraclitus, 113. 

Hermas, Shepherd of, 402. Quoted, 
238, n. 

Hezekiah, Rabbi, 238, n. 

Hilarv, on John i. 18; 450, 451, 

452, n. 464, 465, n. 
Hillel, Rabbi, 250. 

Hindoos, the divine attributes hy- 
postatized in their theology, 352, 
359. 



GENERAL INDEX. 



493 



Hippolytus, 93, n. 461, 467. On 
Rom. ix. 6, 208-210. 

Hofmann, J. C. K., on 1 John v. 20 ; 
197, n. 

Holy Spirit, personality and divini- 
ty of the, 43, 64. Use and mean- 
ing of the term, 311, 312. The 
conception analogous to that of 
the Logos, 312. The Holy Spirit 
often confounded with the Logos 
by the earlier Fathers, 312, n. 

Hope, Thomas, 13, 14. 

Horsley, Bishop, quoted, 91, 103. 
Recommends the study of Cud- 
worth, 99. 

Howe, John, on the Trinity, 54. 

Huet, his " Origeniana" referred to, 
43, n. 

Hag, J. L., 187, n. 

Hume, David, quoted, 33, 34. 

Hurd, Bishop, quoted, 82. 

Huther, J. E., "189, n. 197, n. 306, 
n. 442, 476, 477, 478, 479. 

Hypostatic Union, 57-62. History 
of the doctrine, 107 - 135, 303, n. 
Language of Bacon, South, Watts, 
and others, 129 - 134. Not a mys- 
tery, but an absurdity, 169. 

Idacius Clarus, 466. 

Idatius the Chronicler, 466, n. 

Ideas, archetvpal world of, in the 
Platonic philosophy, 308, 309, 
345-349. 

Ignatius (Psewdo-Ignatius), 468. 

Immanuel, meaning of the name, 
255. 

Inadequate ideas, 166, 387. 

Incarnation of the Logos, opinions 
of the Fathers concerning, 108, 
etc. 

Incomprehensible propositions not 
objects of belief, 165 - 169. 

Incomprehensible truths, 164. 

Infinity, our idea of, 165 - 167. 

Inquisition, the, 106. 

Inspiration of the Apostles, 412. 

Interpretation of language, its prin- 
ciples, 138 - 155. Fundamental 
principle of interpretation vio- 
lated by Trinitarian expositors, 
156, 170. 

Irenseus, 312, n. 313, n. 358, 450, 
451, n. Quoted, 111, n. 112, n. 
360, 361. On the incarnation of 
the Logos, 110 - 112. Quotations 
of John i. 18; 461. 

Uidore of Pelusium, 450, 459, 460. 



Jackson's edition of Novatian re- 
ferred to, 43, n. 93, n. 112, n. 

Jaspis, on 1 John v. 20 ; 197, n. 

Jerome, 455. 

Jerusalem, destruction of, and ex- 
tinction of the Jewish nation, 
how connected with the estab- 
lishment of Christianity or the 
figurative "coming" of Christ, 
275-277. 

Jesus Christ. The doctrine that 
he is both God and man a con- 
tradiction in terms, 57, 58, 169; it 
turns the Scriptures into a book 
of enigmas, 60, 61. The proposi- 
tion, that he is God, proved to be 
false from the Scriptures, 65-89; 
it cannot even be understood in 
any sense which is not obviously 
false, 85-89. Taught his fol- 
lowers to prav, not to himself, 
but to God, 223, 229, 230. His 
miraculous intercourse with his 
Apostles and first followers, 225 - 
228. The question of his pre- 
existence, 234 - 253. Often spok- 
en of personallv, when his religion 
is intended, 247-250, 268-284. 
Confined his teaching to the es- 
sential truths of religion, 412, 414 
-427. Employed terms familiar 
to his hearers in new senses, leav- 
ing their meaning to be gradually 
unfolded, 176, 177; comp. 2S4. 
His divine authority, 17, 429. See 
Apostles, " Coming," Hypostatic 
Union, Judgment, Logos, Messiah. 

Jewish nation. See Jerusalem. 

Jewish opinions respecting the com- 
ing of the Messiah and events 
connected with it, 243, 250, 251, 
389 -406.^ 

Jewish prejudices against Chris- 
tianity, 80, 235, 257, 258. 

Joannes Damascenus, on John i. 
18; 464. 

John, the Apostle, his purpose in 
the Introduction of his Gospel, 
321, 330; in the commencement 
of his First Epistle, 329-331. 
His style. 257; comp. 198, 266, n. 
Not the author of the Apocalvpse, 
402, 409. 

Johnson, Dr. Samuel, on Milton, 149. 

Jowett, Professor Benjamin, 441. 
On Rom. ix. 5; 472. 

" Judge," use of the verb, 282. 

Judgment of men by Christ, 68, 



494 



GENERAL INDEX. 



261, 262, 270, 271, 280-282, 284, 
285. 

Julian of Eclanum, 463, n. 

Julian, the Emperor, 452, n. 458, n. 
462. 

Junilius, on John i. 18 ; 466. 

Justi, L. J. C, on Rom. ix. 5; 
212, n. 

Justin Martyr, on the incarnation 
of the Logos, 108-110. Quot- 
ed, 108, n. 109, 204, 205, 312, n 
359. 

"Kingdom of Heaven," or of God, 
or of the Messiah, meaning of the 
term, 176, 177; figurative lan- 
guage connected with it in the 
New Testament, 273, 274, 280, 
281. 

Knapp, 93, n. 305, n. 443, 444, 445, 
446, 470, etc. 

Kollner, on Rom. ix. 5; 210, n. 
211, n. 

Koppe, on Rom. ix. 5; 211, n. 

Krehl, A. L. G., on Rom. ix. 5; 
210, n. 

Kuinoel, or Kuhnol, 93, n. 184, n. 
302, n. 

Lachmann, 184, n. 189, n. 210, n. 
300, n. 445, 449, 470, etc. His 
editions of the Greek Testament, 
440, 441, 443. 

Lactantius, quoted, 366, n. 370, n. 

Lamson, Dr. Alvan, referred to, 
43, n. 

Language, principles of its interpre- 
tation, 138 - 155. Intrinsic am- 
biguity of, 138, 283, 284; causes, 
141-147. Considerations to be 
attended to by an interpreter of, 
148, 149. Its literal meaning 
often absurd, or false, 156- 160. 
So far as it has a meaning, it 
must be intelligible ; it cannot ex- 
press incomprehensible mysteries, 
161-169. 

Lardner, 453, 461, n. 

Lateran Council (A. D. 1215), 105. 

Laurence, Archbishop, on 1 Tim. 
iii. 16; 185, n. 

LeClerc, 306, n. Quoted, 125, 127 
128, 371. 

Leo I., Pope, 128. 

Liberty, civil, true religion its only 
safeguard, 25 - 29. 

Light the substance of God, accord- ! 
ing to the Cabalists, 351. Light I 



which shone round Christ at his 
transfiguration, controversy re- 
specting, 416. 

Literature of the day, absence of 
religious principle in the, 9 - 15. 

Locke 32, 132, 200, n. 207, n. 
212, n. 

Logos, meaning of the term, 307, 
369 - 372. Its use in the later Pla- 
tonic philosophy, 308, 309. Per- 
sonified in the Wisdom of Solo- 
mon, 310, 311. Naturalness of the 
conception, 310. The Logos, at 
first personified, afterwards hypos* 
tatized, or conceived of as a proper 
person, 313. Opinions of Philo, 
314 - 316. St. John's use of the 
term, 317 - 331. Regarded by 
the Fathers of the first four cen- 
turies both as an attribute and a 
person, 355-364. Often identi- 
fied with the Holy Spirit, and 
with the Wisdom of God, 312, n.; 
comp. 362, 363. Origen quoted 
on the relation of the Logos to 
the Wisdom of God, 356, 357. 
The Logos partially identified 
with God by the earlier Fathers, . 
365, 366. Conceived of as a wiowi- 
ifestation of God, 368, 369. The 
uttered Logos, 369 - 372. Confu- 
sion of ideas produced by con- 
founding the different meanings 
of the word, 372, 373. See Fa- 
thers, Philo. 

Lowth, Dr. William, on Isa. vi. 3; 
182. 

Lucian the martvr, 450, 459, 460, d 

Lucke, 197, n. 302, n. 

Lunemann, G. C. G., 442, 477. 

Luther, on Isa. ix. 5 ; 183, n. 

Macknight, on Titus ii. 13 ; 306. 

Mai, Angelo, 463, n. 

Manuscripts, Greek, of the New 
Testament, 188, n. 439, 449. 
Punctuation in, 205, 206, 471. 

Marcellus, 213, 450, 459, 460, n. 

Marsh, Bishop, 184, n. Quoted, 434. 

Martini, referred to, 43, n. 

Matthaii's editions of the Greek Tes- 
tament, 439-441. Referred to, 
457, n. 475, 477, 481. 

Maurer, on Isa. ix. 5; 183, n. 

Maximinus the Arian bishop, 452. 
n. 465. 

Mayer, Dr. Lewis, on Heb. i. 8, 9 
301, u. 



GENERAL INDEX. 



495 



Messiah, the, Jewish expectations 
and feelings respecting, 243-245, 
250, 251, 389 -- 406. See Old Tes- 
tament. 

Meyer, H. A. W., 184, n. 189, n. 
^97, n. 210, n. 302, n. 303, n. 
306, n. 446, 448, n. 470, etc. His 
Commentary on the New Testa- 
ment, 442. 

Michaelis, J. D., 184, n. 197, n. 302, 
n. 448. 

Middleton, Bishop, 93, n. 185. His 
" Doctrine of the Greek Article " 
examined, 199-203, n. 

Mill, Dr. John, 435. His edition of 
the Greek Testament, 438, 439. 

Millennium, doctrine of the, 406, 
407, 409. 

Milton, hyperbolical language used 
concerning, by Johnson, Addison, 
Bentlev, and others, 149, 150. 
Calls angels "gods," 300, n. 

Monk's Life of Bentley, 103, 104. 

Monophysite heresy, 128, 129. 

Montagu, Richard, 462, n. 

Montfaucon, 434, 466, n. 

More, Henry, his u Antidote to 
Atheism," 417, n. 

Moras, on 1 John v. 20 ; 197, n. 

Moses, remarkable language con- 
cerning, 255, n. 

Mosheim, quoted, 94, 95, 96 ? n. 126, 
129. Referred to, 416, n. 

Munscher, his "Dogmengeschichte" 
referred to, 43, n. 112, n. Errors, 
111, n. 120, n Quoted, 122. 

Munter, quoted, 117, 118. 

Mysteries, 161. 

u Name," pleonastic use of the 

word, 215, 216, 228. 
" Nature," use of the word, 310. 
Nature of Christ. See Hypostatic 

Union. 
Neander, quoted, 111, n. 371, n. 

Referred to, 118, 197, n. 302, n. 

306, n. 
Nestorius, 126-128. 
Newcome, Archbishop, 93, n. 197, 

n. 306, n. On 1 Cor. x. 9; 474. 
Newton, Sir Isaac, on 1 Tim. iii. 16; 

189, n. 
New York, State of, religious fanat- 
icism in, 18, n. 
Nice, Council of (A. D. 325), 42, 54, 

122, 358, 359. 
Noesselt, on Rom. ix. 5; 207, n. 
Novatian, 93, u. 210. 

46* 



Noves, Dr. George R., referred to, 
182, n. 183, n. 189, n. 250, n. 

Oektel, on Rom. ix. 5; 212, n. 

Old Testament, affords no proof of 
the doctrine of the Trinity, 181, 
182; or of the deity of the Mes- 
siah, 183, n. Allegorical inter- 
pretation of the, 418, 419. 

Olshausen, 184, n. 189, n. 476, 477. 
Quoted, 211, n. 

Omniscience, our idea of, 167 - 169. 

* Only Son," or " only-begotten 
Son," meaning of the term as 
applied to Christ, 220, 469, n. 

Oriental style, 143, 236, 241, 249, 
277, 278, 282, 287, 288, 409. 

Origen, 93, n. 109, n. 314, 450, 451, 
n. 452, n. Quoted, 120, n. 121, 
362, 364, 366, n. On the incar- 
nation of the Logos, 120-122. 
On the relation of the Logos to 
the Wisdom of God, 356, 357, 
comp. 335, n. 362. On Prayer, 
231 - 234. Denies that Christ is 
" the God over all," 213. On the 
Unitarianism of the great body of 
believers, 374. Quotations of 
John i. 18; 456,457. 

Orthodoxv, so called, 376 - 378. 

Oudin, 464. 

Ovid, quoted, 349. 

Paley has misrepresented the 

character of Christian morality, 

178. 
Palladius, 455. 
Patrick, Bishop, on Deut. vi. 4; 

182. 
Patripassians, 110. 
Paul, the Apostle, his miraculous 

intercourse with Christ, 225, 226. 

Not the author of the Epistle to 

the Hebrews, 194, n. 
Paulus, on Rom. ix. 5 ; 210, n. 
Pearce, Bishop, on John x. 30 ; 93, 

n. 
Penn, Granville, 446, 476. 
u Person," meaning of the word, in 

reference to the Trinity, 40 - 42, 

47-54. 
Petavius, or Petau, his " Dogmata 

Theologica" referred to, 43, n. 

125, 416. Quoted, 100, 101, 362, 

363. 
Peter, the Apostle, probably not the 

author of the Second Epistla 

ascribed to him, 401. 



496 



GENERAL INDEX. 



Phaebadius, or Phoebadius, 450, 464, 
465. 

Philentolos, Daniel, Arabic version 
of the New Testament by, 186, n. 

Philo, the Jewish philosopher, 94, n. 
220, 221, 308, 363, 371, 372, n. 
His character and influence, 332, 
333. His conceptions respecting 
the Logos, 314 - 316. Applies the 
term Logos to angels, Moses, 
Aaron, &c, 328, 329. His specu- 
lations concerning the Wisdom 
of God, 336 - 338. Hypostatizes 
other attributes or Powers of God, 
338 - 343, and even the Powers of 
God generally, 343-345, which 
he identifies with the Ideas of the 
archetypal world, 345 - 348. His 
speculations similar to those of 
the Gnostics, Cabalists, and Hin- 
doos, 334-353. Explanation of 
the process of thought which led 
to them, 353-355. See Fathers. 

Philoxenian Svriac version, 466, n. 

Photius, 464, n. 

Plato, 175. Nothing resembling the 
doctrine of the Trinity to be found 
in his writings, 96. * Epistles as- 
cribed to him spurious, 96, n. 

Platonic philosophy, the later, the 
source of the doctrine of the Trin- 
ity, 94 - 104, 322. its archetypal 
world of Ideas, and doctrine of 
the Logos, 308, 309, 348. 

Pleroma of the Gnostics, 336, 351. 

Plinv's Letter to Trajan, quoted, 
231. 

Plutarch, quoted, 32. 

Pocock, Dr. Edward, 394, n. 395, n. 

Pope, quoted, 150. 

Porter, Professor J. Scott, 189, n. 
446. 

Potter, Archbishop, quoted, 114. 

Powers of God hvpostatized by 
Philo, 338-345. * Regarded by 
him as constituting the Ideas of 
the archetypal world, 346-348. 
So bv others among the later 
Platohists, 348, 349. 

Praver to Christ, remarks on, 221 - 
234. 

Pre-existence of Christ, remarks on 
the, 234-253. 

Pre-existence of souls, doctrine of, 
prevalent in the time of Christ, 
413. 

Priestley, his History of Early 
Opinions, referred " to, 43, n. j 



104 n. Errors, 111, n. 132, fc 

232, n. 363, n. 

Proclus of Constantinople, 463. 

Prudentius, 452, n. Quoted, 364. 

Ptolemy, the Gnostic, 334, n. 

Punctuation of the Greek New Tes- 
tament of no authority, 205, 206, 
471. 

Rammohun Roy, 353. 

" Ransom," use of the word, 155. 

Ratio as the rendering of Logos, 370, 

371. 
Received Text, so called, of the 

Greek New Testament, 432-434, 

437, 438. 
Reiche, on Rom. ix. 5; 210, n. 
Religion, as a science, defined, 26. 

What it teaches, 375, 376. 
Resurrection of Christ effected by 

the power of God, the Father, 

209, n. 
Revelation of St. John. See Apoc- 
alypse. 
Robinson, Dr. Edward, 93, n. 443. 

On the word TTpoo-Kvvtlv, 447. 
Rosenmiiller, J. G., 93, n. 184, n. 

189, n. 197, n. 302, n. 306, n. 
Ruckert, L. L, 210, n. 211, n. 474. 
Rufinus of Aquileia, 457. 
Rufinus Svrus, or Palsestinensis, 

463. 

Sabatier, on John i. 18; 464. 

Sabellians, the, 212. 

Sabellius, 213. 

Scecvlum, meaning of the word, 194. 

Salvation. How men are " saved" 

by Christ, 270. 
Sandius, referred to, 114. 
Satan, Jewish conception of, 198. 

Language of our Saviour respect- 

ing/420; 421. 
Saxe, or Saxius, C, 464. 
Sehleusner, 93, n. 476. 
Schoettgen, 238, n. 
Scholz, his critical researches, and 

edition of the Greek Testament 

439-441. Referred to 189, n. 

305. n. 451, 470, etc. 
Schott, H. A., 184, n. 189, n. 197, n. 

305, 11. 306, n. 443, 470, etc. 
Schrader, Karl, on Rom. ix. 5; 210, 

n. 
Scrivener, F. H., 437, n. 
Semisch, quoted, 455, 456. 
Semler, on Rom. ix. 5; 207, n. 210 

n. 



GENERAL INDEX. 



497 



Sephiroth of the Cabalists, 351, 352, 
366. 

Sermo as the rendering of Logos, 
370, 371. 

Shakespeare, quoted, 194, 195. Re- 
ferred to, 448. 

Sharp, Granville, on the Greek ar- 
ticle, 199, n. 478. On Philip, iii. 
3; 475. 

Sherlock, Dr. William, quoted, 53, 
372, 373. 

" Sign from heaven," 279. 

Simpson, Rev. John, 251, n. 

Siva, 352. 

Smith, Dr. John Pye, 184, n. 

Socinus, regarded Christ as an ob- 
ject of prayer, 222. 

Socrates, the philosopher, 32. 

Socrates Scholasticus, 460, n. 

" Son of God," use and meaning of 
the term, 68, 218-221. 

" Son of Man," meaning of the 
term, 265, 266. 

South, Dr. Robert, on the Incarna- 
tion, 130-132. 

Souverain, his Le Platonisme devoitt, 
368, n. 

Sozomen, quoted, 460, n. 

Spenser, quoted, 32. 

Spirit of God. See Holy Spirit. 

Stanley, A. P., adopts Lachmann's 
text, 441. 

Steiger, on Col. ii. 2 ; 476. 

Stephen, his address to Christ at 
his martyrdom, 224. 

Stephens, Robert, his third edition 
of the Greek Testament, 436, 437, 
438. 

Stoic doctrine of the renovation of 
all things by fire, 406. 

Stolz, on Rom. ix. 4, 5; 207, n. 
212, n. 

Stuart, Professor Moses, his Letters 
to Dr. Channing, 3, n. 41, 58, 66, 
83. On John x. 30; 93, n. On 
the absence of the doctrine of the 
Trinity from the Old Testament, 
181, n. On Acts xx. 28; 184, n. 
On 1 Tim. iii. 16; 189, n. 190. 
On Rom. ix. 5; 210, n. On Heb. 
i. 8; 301, n. On Titus ii. 13; 
306, n. Mistranslation of Tertul- 
lian, 366, n. On Rev. i. 8; 479. 
Referred to, 203, n. 443. 

Sufferings of this life regarded by 
the Jews as punishments from 
God, 413. 

Symmachus, version of, 301, n. 



Synods. See Ancyra, Antioch. 

Talmud, quoted, 238, n. 250. 

Tatian, on the Logos, 358. 

Taylor, Dr. John, of Norwich, 207, 
n. 

Tertullian, quoted, 116, 210-212, 
313, n. 318, 362, 366, n. 370, n. 
Referred to, 93, n. 115, 117. On 
the incarnation of the Logos, 115 
- 117. Looseness of his citations 
from Scripture, 456. 

Testament. See Greek New Testa- 
ment, Old Testament. 

" Textus Receptus," 437. 

Theile, his edition of the Greek les- 
tament, 443, 445. Referred to, 
305, n. 470, 473, etc. 

Theodoret, 112, n. On the Platonic 
Trinity, 97, 98. On John i. 18; 
463. 

Theodosius, the Emperor, 127. 

Theodotion, version of, 301, n. 

Theodotus, 450, 453. 

Theology, state of, in England, 15; 
in Germany, 16; in America, 17, 
18. Inveterate errors in, 36. 

Theophilus of Antioch, 358. Quot- 
ed, 312, n. 360. 

Theophylact, 267, n. 464. 

Tholuck, on John xx. 28; 302, n. 

Thomson, Charles, 207, n. 

Thomson, James, the poet, quoted, 
227. 

Thomson, Dr. James, on the manu- 
scripts used for the Compluten- 
sian Polyglot, 434. 

Tillotson, Archbishop, on the Atha- 
nasian creed, 172. 

Tischendorf, 184, n. 189, n. 210, n. 
305, n. 439. His editions of the 
Greek Testament, 440, 441. Re- 
ferred to, 446, 451, 470, etc. 

Tittmann, 305, n. 443, 445, 470, etc. 

Titus of Bostra, 450, 452, 462. 
Quoted, 463, n. 

Transubstantiation, 105, 151, 159. 

Tregelles, Dr. S. P., 184, n. 187, n. 
188, n. 189, n. 434, n. 436, 439, 
446, 473, etc. His critical labors, 
442, 443. His arguments in favor 
of the reading u only-begotten 
God" in John i. 18, examined, 
448-469. On 1 Peter iii. 15; 
477. 

Trinity, doctrine of the, contradic- 
tory in terms to that of the unity 
of 'God, 40, 41. Opinions con- 



498 



GENERAL INDEX. 



cenring it before the Council of 
Nice very different from the mod- 
ern doctrine, 42, 43. (See Fathers.) 
Various modifications of the, 44 - 
57. Established in its present 
form bv the fourth general Late- 
ran Council (A. D. 1215), 105. 
No pretence that it is expressly 
taught in the Scriptures, 63, 90. 
Changes in the mode of its de- 
fence, 91-93. Its origin in the 
later Platonic philosophy, 94- 
106; nothing resembling it in 
Plato himself, 96. (See Fathers, 
Logos.) Evidence of Ecclesias- 
tical History against it, 104. Not 
a mystery, but an absurdity, 169, 
170. Present state of opinion 
concerning it, 4-6. An unpleas- 
ant subject to discuss, 31-35, 
285, 286. See Jesus Christ, 
Holy Spirit. 
Truth, religious, its vital impor- 
tance, 20-29, 378, 379. 

Valentinians, the, 334, n. 337. 

Valentinus, 453. 

Various readings. See Greek New 
Testament. 

Vater, 189, n. 305, n. 443, 446, 470, 
etc. 

Vedas, the, monotheistic, 353. 

Verbal translations often false, 146, 
147. 

Verbum as the rendering of Logos, 
370, 371. 

Versions of the New Testament, an- 
cient, reading of 1 Timothy iii. 16 
in, 185 - 187, n.; their date, 186. 

Victorinus Afer, on John i. 18; 465. 

Vigilius of Tapsa, 450, 452, n. 466. 

Vishnu, 352. 

Voltaire, 11, 12. 

Wahl, on John x. 30 ; 93, n. 
Wakefield, Gilbert, 207, n. 
Walton's Polyglot, 438. 
Waterland, on the word penon, 41, 
42. 



Watts, Dr. Isaac, quoted, 78, n. ltt, 

133, 192, n. 

Westminster Assembly's Shorter 
Catechism, quoted, 63. 

Wetstein, 145, n. 178, 184, n. 189, 
n. 197, n. 212, n. 213, n. 250, n 
306, n. 434, 439, 456, n. 475. Er 
rors in his note on John i. 18 ; 451 
452, 459, 460, 464, n. 466, n. 

Wette, De, 183, n. 189, n. 197, n 
212, n. 306, n. 446, 470, etc. 

Winston's Primitive Christianity re- 
ferred to, 43, n. 112, n. 114, n. 
210, n. 

Whitbv, referred to, 43, n. 91, 92, 
178/213, n. 456, n. 

White, Dr. Joseph, 186, n. 187, n. 

Wiesinger, 189, n. 475. 

Wilson, John, his u Scripture Proofs 
of Unitarianism," 89, n.; his 
tt Concessions of Trinitarians," 
93, n. 480; his "Unitarian Prin- 
ciples confirmed," &c. 303, n. 

Winer, on 1 John v. 20; 197, n. 
On Titus ii. 13 and Jude 4; 203, 
n. 306, n. On Rom. ix. 5; 211, n. 

Winstanley, Rev. Calvin, on the 
Greek article, 202, n. 

Winzer, on Rom. ix. 5; 210, n. 

Wisdom of God, the, personifications 
of, 311. Often identified with the 
Logos, 312, n. 358-363. Philo's 
conceptions of, 336 - 338. Origen 
on its relation to the Logos, 356, 
357; comp. 335, n. 

Witchcraft, prevalence of the belief 
in, 416, 417. 

Wood, Anthony a, 32. 

"Word," the/ as the rendering of 
Logos, 370, 371. See Logos. 

Words can express only human 
ideas, 162-164. 

u Worship," use of the word in the 
Common Version of the Bible, 
447, 448. 

Yates, Rev. James, 208, n. 
Young, Dr. Edward, 168, 159, 30ft. 



GENERAL INDEX. 



499 



GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES. 



affux, "race," 325, n. 

ala>v } 194. 

apXl Kai T ^°Si 479, 480. 

&o, 221, n. 
cyo) a/xi, 243-245. 
cmKa\el(r6cu, 228, 229. 
fi*71. 

£077, 261, 324, n. 
Gw, 113, 114, 120, n. 
865, n. 468. 



314, 



KakelcrBai, 221, n. 

Xoyoy, 307, 369. \6yos €vdu& 

Bctos, npocfropiKoSi 370. 
fiovoyevrjs Geo?, 448 — 469. 
ovros, referring to a remoter 

antecedent, 197, n. 
TrkrjpcofjLa, 294-298. 
Trpoo-Kvveiv, 447. 
crap£, 325, n. Kara adpKa, 208, 

n. 
y^vxrji HI, n 



THE END 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



022 190 390 



